Feed on Posts or Comments 31 May 2016

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 06 Jul 2013 12:04 am

The insanity of Christianity: Prayer edition

This article starts with the following inspirational paragraph:

Have you ever known someone who really trusts God? When I was an atheist, I had a good friend who prayed often. She would tell me every week about something she was trusting God to take care of. And every week I would see God do something unusual to answer her prayer. Do you know how difficult it is for an atheist to observe this week after week? After a while, “coincidence” begins to sound like a very weak argument.

Doesn’t that sound exciting? “Every week I would see God do something unusual to answer her prayer.”

If this is true, why doesn’t she pray to end cancer worldwide? Why doesn’t she pray to end world hunger? If God will do something unusual every week to answer her prayers, why not pray for something that will substantially improve life on earth for everyone? This is where the insanity comes in, as seen in this paragraph:

For those who do know him and rely on him, Jesus seems to be wildly generous in his offer: “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.”5 To “remain” in him and have his words remain in them means they conduct their lives aware of him, relying on him, listening to what he says. Then they’re able to ask him whatever they want. Here is another qualifier: “This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us — whatever we ask — we know that we have what we asked of him.”6 God answers our prayers according to his will (and according to his wisdom, his love for us, his holiness, etc.).

What is hard to understand about, “ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you”? But it never happens when praying for anything real like a worldwide cure for cancer. Now a Christian has to explain why Jesus would say something that is wrong. So they say, “God answers our prayers according to his will (and according to his wisdom, his love for us, his holiness, etc.)” Which is to say that God answers zero prayers of substance. This is the insanity. Christians believe that God answers prayers, even though God never, ever answers concrete prayers that would improve life for everyone.

1,161 Responses to “The insanity of Christianity: Prayer edition”

  1. on 23 Aug 2013 at 2:49 pm 1.freddies_dead said …

    And once again A has no answer to the many, many questions he’s desperately trying to avoid.

    He thinks the word Tetrapod is somehow being touted as proof for evolution. He’s wrong of course, but he’s got to try and divert the conversation somehow.

    He has no intention of educating himself as to the overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of evolution that has been gathered over the last 150+ years.

    He prefers talking snakes and men made of dust. That’s his “scientific” stance on the subject. The best he can manage is the word “creation” without making any attempt to demonstrate the existence of the entity he claims did the creating.

    I’m guessing his prayer for help from God isn’t being answered. Don’t worry, we know why.

  2. on 23 Aug 2013 at 2:59 pm 2.A said …

    “He thinks the word Tetrapod is somehow being touted as proof for evolution”

    Huh, but you brought it up as proof of ToE, not me. So if you are not pontificating about the tetrapod, what is your proof using the SM? Lucy?, Embryos?, Moths? Come on, this is suppose to be a fact.

    I can give you the gate voltage on a BJT and I can support it using the SM. Lets see you do the same. Drop your tetrapods now! Lol!!!

    You seem quite flustered Freddie…………

  3. on 23 Aug 2013 at 3:22 pm 3.Angus and Alexis said …

    “There it is. Tetrapod proves DNA evolved out of Campbell’s soup, the brain evolved from clay and man evolved from scarecrows.”

    heretic, we all know it came from extra chunky soup, duh.

    *sarcasm over*

    So…you are a theist right? and so believe in talking snakes and magic…*sigh*

  4. on 23 Aug 2013 at 4:17 pm 4.DPK said …

    You guys are trying to teach Algebra to a cat.
    “A” has no interest in an honest discussion about god, prayer, OR evolution. He just wants to jump on your coffee table and spill your drink so you can’t have an honest discussion with anyone either. This is the theist mind at work… don’t allow discussion or thought… silence or eliminate those who dare to question your delusion, and don’t worry yourself with pesky little things like logic, reason, evidence, truth.
    God is on your side, after all.

    I just wonder why, if god answers prayers, why won’t he allow anyone to actually demonstrate he is real, and not just a figment of someone’s imagination… like all the OTHER gods are?

  5. on 23 Aug 2013 at 5:38 pm 5.DPK said …

    Ass keeps bringing up his evolution fetish, and then lets slip some stupidity about how a creature “decided” to evolve and that the entire body of 150 years worth of highly scrutinized scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution can be summed up by one single example. Hysterical.

    So, Ass, got any evidence that your god actually exists, or that gods indeed intercede in the physical world in response to prayers? Anything at all? You mean you have absolutely NOTHING to offer except your childish misunderstanding of the process of evolution and natural selection, and you somehow think this is god proof?

  6. on 23 Aug 2013 at 5:48 pm 6.A said …

    “got any evidence that your god actually exists”

    Oh yeah! Using language you will understand. 6000 years of evidence, Creation, DNA, man and all the human beings who know God exists and Tetrapods. Now stop spilling our milk!!

    lol!!!!

  7. on 23 Aug 2013 at 5:51 pm 7.A said …

    Agnus the Tulip,

    You believe in evolutions don’t believe nature can create a talking snake? Oh Tulip! Your faith is wavering!!!

    lol!!!

    Isn’t a talking man a little more unbelievable SuperFly?

  8. on 23 Aug 2013 at 5:57 pm 8.DPK said …

    “all the human beings who know God exists…”

    LOL… now which of the thousands of sundry gods do humans KNOW exist? They can’t all be real, now can they??
    Which one created “creation”? And specifically, how do you know this?

  9. on 23 Aug 2013 at 7:13 pm 9.A said …

    “now which of the thousands of sundry gods do humans KNOW exist? They can’t all be real, now can they??”

    Oh Dippy, that is now requiring more evidence than you provided. WHICH process created DNA? WHICH Big Bang theory do you believe? Who or What produced matter? So whadda ya got Dip?

  10. on 23 Aug 2013 at 7:37 pm 10.DPK said …

    WHICH process created DNA?
    Don’t know… do you?

    WHICH Big Bang theory do you believe?
    Also don’t have a preferred theory. Doesn’t really matter to me. Makes no difference in my life what so ever. Which one do you believe?

    Who or What produced matter?

    What makes you think there was a who or what that created matter? Who or what created your proposed god? I know matter exists because, well I’m made of it. I can produce matter… can you produce god? I thought not..

    There, now I’ve answered you (once again, honestly). Will you admit you do not KNOW which of the thousands of available gods, if any at all, are responsible for what you call creation? If not, then you must tell us which god you think “done it” and why you think that. After all, you made the claim that certain humans “know” god exists. If you are one of them, then you must “know” which god it is… or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass… again.
    If you don;t want to name him, can you at least tell us a little about him? Does he intercede in the physical world in response to prayers, as most people claim their gods do? Is he omnipotent and omniscient? Tell us. How and when exactly did he create the universe and how exactly do you “know” this? Does he talk to you?

  11. on 24 Aug 2013 at 12:44 am 11.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “You believe in evolutions don’t believe nature can create a talking snake?”

    Potentially, yes, a talking snake could arrive via evolution.
    But a talking snake ten thousand years ago talking to a rib woman about fruit? No, that did not happen.

    “Isn’t a talking man a little more unbelievable SuperFly?”

    No, its more believable, as primates and apes are known for their social skills and intelligence.

    “WHICH process created DNA?”

    Currently unknown, no one knows.

    “WHICH Big Bang theory do you believe?”

    None to be honest, all of them are rather hard to believe.

    “Who or What produced matter?”

    Potentially always existed. Unknown for the most part.

  12. on 24 Aug 2013 at 2:15 am 12.A said …

    “Do you know… do you?”

    So you don’t know how DNA began yet you STILL believe it was done by nature?

    Hmmm, so what you are saying is we don’t have to have all the answers to maintain faith.

    “But a talking snake ten thousand years ago talking to a rib woman about fruit? No, that did not happen.”

    Why? All women have ribs. You believe DNA was written with no programmer! Lol!!!!!

  13. on 24 Aug 2013 at 2:42 am 13.DPK said …

    So you don’t know how DNA began yet you STILL believe it was done by nature?

    I don’t have to know precisely how gravity works to know that it isn’t tiny invisible angels flapping their wings. I don’t need to know precisely what causes volcanic eruptions to know there aren’t volcano gods who are angry. I don’t have to know how the moon was formed to know it isn’t made from cheese.
    Now, no one here is claiming to know how DNA began except you. Since your story seems rather far fetched, that it was designed and built my an invisible man with magic powers, and since you have provided absolutely no evidence to support that idea, yeah, it’s a fairly safe bet to say that even though we don’t fully understand how DNA formed, it wasn’t by magic.
    Why? Because there is no such thing as magic. There is however, such a thing as natural laws and chemistry.

  14. on 24 Aug 2013 at 3:12 am 14.A said …

    “even though we don’t fully understand how DNA formed, it wasn’t by magic”

    I never said magic, you did. So that leaves only nature, right? Nature writing a high information program is NOT magic? Lol!!!!!

    Do you see how ridiculous you sound dippy? With all we know about nature give me even one credible hypothesis.

  15. on 24 Aug 2013 at 12:25 pm 15.Ben said …

    Since your story seems rather far fetched

    Any explanation for DNA seems far fetched at the moment.

  16. on 24 Aug 2013 at 2:41 pm 16.DPK said …

    “I never said magic, you did.”

    I know you are careful to avoid that word. But let’s look at what you actually ARE saying.
    Through your own incredulity at the ability, over hundreds of millions, even billions of years, for a self replicating molecule to encode information, you deem it “impossible.”
    In place you propose that there is an invisible, sentient being, presumably of infinite complexity, who was not created, but either willed itself into existence or who has existed for eternity. This being is so complex that it can create anything out of sheer will. Not only that, this being has perfect knowledge of everything that has ever occurred, past, present and future. It knows the location of every electron, quark, and neutrino in the universe at every second… for all eternity, past and future. Indeed, it controls everything in the universe and everything that happens happens strictly according to its will.
    Now, this perfect and infinitely powerful being, after an eternity of perfect existence, decided to create a race of sentient beings on a remote speck of dust in a nondescript corner of an unremarkable galaxy. So he started with a creation event that took 14 billion years to end in an apelike creature who has been around about 60,000 year. But, this being loves this creature, and even though he created him to be a flawed and evil being, he decided to reincarnate his perfect being as one of them, so that he could be murdered as a sacrifice to himself to atone for the sin that the 2nd one of the apelike creatures committed, exactly as he had planned to do, an infinite time ago.
    In addition, this perfect being wishes nothing more than to be friends with this apelike creature, and will send the immortal soul that he imparted the creature with to an eternity of torment unless the creature believes in him and worships him. And to make sure that his will is known and understood by all of his creation, he left behind a book of fables and stories, written by bronze age tribal nomads, full of factual errors, contradictions, inaccuracies, which chronicals his instructions to his “children.” This book contains instructions about how to properly buy, sell, and beat slaves… how to denigrate women, offer the supreme being animal sacrifices, and other atrocities… and chronicles the being’s history of mass murder, genocide, infanticide, and petty jealousy.

    Besides that, as a test to his creation, he planted a veritable mountain of evidence designed to trick these stupid apes into thinking that they evolved over billions of years, from simpler, common ancestors, gradually becoming more and more complex. This of course is completely false, but he did this for some reason known only to him.

    Yeah… that’s not magic.

  17. on 24 Aug 2013 at 4:00 pm 17.DPK said …

    Oh, yeah… and I forgot to mention, this being, in his infinite wisdom, also created a whole race of spirit beings to live in his non-physical world with him. Even though his in omnipotent, he requires these spiritual minions to “do his work” and carry out his bidding. They are also known to intercede for humans with the supreme being in asking for special requests.
    Unfortunately, and apparently unforeseen by the infinite and omniscient being, a bunch of these minions that he created decided to revolt against his perfectness, and they fought a war in which all of the rebel spiritual beings, led by one particularly nasty one, were banished to yet another non-physical, non-temporal world where they are permitted to visit the humans in the physical world in order to trick or tempt them into doing things that the supreme being does not want them to do, and for which they will be punished for all eternity by being banished to a place of torment and unending suffering.
    But the supreme being is all loving, all good, and all forgiving.

    That about cover your hypothesis for the genesis of DNA… ASS?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    gasp….
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  18. on 24 Aug 2013 at 4:20 pm 18.A said …

    “In place you propose”

    Bah!!!!!!, I proposed nothing. I did ask how nature programmed complex information code, DNA? Do you even have a reasonable hypothesis other than magic?

  19. on 24 Aug 2013 at 4:33 pm 19.A said …

    “as a test to his creation, he planted a veritable mountain of evidence”

    Do you mean making a tetrapod? Leaving bones in the ground? Moths? Emboyos? I wish you would show us this mountain. Sure its not on Atlantis?

    Bah!!!!!, lol!!

  20. on 24 Aug 2013 at 5:03 pm 20.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “I proposed nothing.”

    Being a theist makes you propose a deity by default.

    “Do you mean making a tetrapod? Leaving bones in the ground? Moths? Emboyos?”

    I find it amusing that you left out all of the other evidence that we have told you, and instead used the more simple ones.

  21. on 24 Aug 2013 at 5:23 pm 21.DPK said …

    “I wish you would show us this mountain.”

    If you were honest in your recollection, the mountain was presented to you, but you chose not to “wade through it”.
    Willful ignorance.

    We notice that you propose nothing, refuse to tell us about your god, answer ANY questions about him or his properties. You do this because you know it is ridiculous nonsense.

    So where does that leave us then? You seem to disavow the biblical god of the bible described above (gee.. hope he is not listening to you deny him or your ass is cooked) and your argument from incredulity claims DNA could not have evolved naturally. So, what are you offering in terms of an alternative? You don’t know??? hahaha… well, I already admitted I don’t know. So it seems we have some common ground. We both admit we do not understand the exact process by which DNA evolved, and we both admit that the idea of the god of the bible is utterly ridiculous. So, unless you have a third alternative that involves some other god that you can demonstrate exists, it seems this diversionary topic is at a dead end.
    Not that it matters, the topic at hand was the existence of gods and the claim that they intercede in the physical world in response to prayers… do you have anything to add to that topic? If not, then I’d expect we can agree you have nothing to say.

  22. on 24 Aug 2013 at 6:17 pm 22.A said …

    “your argument from incredulity claims DNA could not have evolved naturally.”

    I did not make an argument. I did ask, out of your materialistic view, what is a possible reasonable proposal?

    simple question, there should be a mechanism in place we see in nature, right?

    Bring us a portion of the mountain while you are at it. I want to learn.

  23. on 24 Aug 2013 at 8:34 pm 23.DPK said …

    If you do not want to tell us your alternative or do any actual research for yourself, then please stick to the topic at least.
    Do you have any evidence that any thing such as gods exist, and that they intercede in the natural world in response to prayers? I take it your stubborn refusal to discuss the topic means you have nothing to offer on this subject? Even relative to your off topic diversion, do you have anything at all to offer other than “well, I can’t comprehend how this could have happened and I don;t want to do any actual reading or research into it, so the only other thing I can think of is a god musta did it by magic?
    LOL, you are as transparent as a pane of glass, Ass… and your position is every bit as fragile.

    Tell you what, since you are an astrophysicist, oh sorry, and Astrophysicist… I forgot you capitalize it… how about you make a parallel argument to demonstrate exactly what you want from us. I don’t think natural laws can be responsible for gravity. I mean, how can mass cause empty space, and even time, to warp and bend? You said space is “nothing” correct? And you said pointing out the space is actually “something” amounts to redefining the concept of nothing and laughed at the idea. So surely, there must be a mechanism in place in nature to explain how gravity causes matter, separated by “nothing” to attract one another. Your explanation of this phenomenon may help shed some light on exactly what you think should be forthcoming regarding DNA.

    I am glad to see you have at least renounced the silly ideas of the biblical god as patently absurd… see, you have learned something from your interaction here.

  24. on 24 Aug 2013 at 11:51 pm 24.A said …

    “Do you have any evidence that any thing such as gods exist,”

    Dippy Dippy, I just posted it up above about where you posted ToE evidence. I used the same standard you use for ToE. Only fair, right?

    sigh…..

    lol!!!

  25. on 24 Aug 2013 at 11:54 pm 25.A said …

    Oh,

    bring on the mountain so we can see what passes for evidence!

  26. on 25 Aug 2013 at 12:23 am 26.DPK said …

    So that would a a “no” huh?
    Yeah I thought as much.
    Lol

  27. on 25 Aug 2013 at 5:16 am 27.Anonymous said …

    Gosh, seeing A try his “high information” distraction, it’s reads just like the same lame attempt made by Biff in a previous thread. Neither has actually said what they mean by the term either. Just the usual dodging and name-calling.

    But then, Edward also didn’t answer any questions either, did he? It looks like he also just posted the same A-style diversions. Do these folks just come in with a canned list of ways to avoid proving the existence of their imaginary friends?

    No, it can’t be, can it? It’s almost like they are the same…. no, A wouldn’t do that… would he?

  28. on 25 Aug 2013 at 11:00 am 28.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said, again…
    “bring on the mountain so we can see what passes for evidence!”

    Already did so, DPK and freddie also had the decency to post links, making sources.

    “I used the same standard you use for ToE.”

    You stated.

    ““list your standard”
    Sure, for the 50th time. Science must meet the scientific method. We will then analyze if your belief is based on actual facts/evidence or faith.”

    That is fair, as science does indeed use the scientific method. If this is indeed your standard, and you know for fact that there is a deity that made the universe, please use said method to explain to us how so. Otherwise you are again dismissed.

    “simple question, there should be a mechanism in place we see in nature, right?”

    Honestly mate, what is this question even asking?…

    “I did not make an argument. I did ask, out of your materialistic view, what is a possible reasonable proposal?”

    Possible proposal? Not magic, that is for sure. As for how DNA came to be, i don’t care, abiogenesis, aliens, each are as far fetched as god.

  29. on 25 Aug 2013 at 5:56 pm 29.A said …

    “That is fair, as science does indeed use the scientific method.”

    Good!,I am waiting. Step by step using SM show us have life evolved from the soup using the SM.

    Maybe we can then agree on what is and us not to evidence

  30. on 25 Aug 2013 at 6:34 pm 30.DPK said …

    Can you show us, step by step, and using the scientific method, exactly how gravity causes matter to be attracted, and how it manages to warp and distort both space and time? While you are at it, please demonstrate, step by step, and using the scientific method, exactly how space, which you state is “nothing” can limit the maximum speed that matter and energy can travel through it. I mean, how can “nothing” have properties?
    Then we can talk about your definition of evidence.
    LOL…. but you won’t will you, ASS?

  31. on 25 Aug 2013 at 11:57 pm 31.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said…again…(come on man, abiogenesis? Why?)
    “Step by step using SM show us have life evolved from the soup using the SM.”

    Oh trust me A, i would.
    However, you seem to be unable to understand that atheists don’t always believe in abiogenesis, big bang, etc.

    But i must say, abiogenesis is showing great signs of progress.

    Lastly, as DPK has said above, you can prove things without the scientific method, it helps, sure, but it can be replaced with common sense and current evidence.

    I have asked.
    “If this is indeed your standard, and you know for fact that there is a deity that made the universe, please use said method to explain to us how so. Otherwise you are again dismissed.”

    Btw, can people copy and paste this if it is ignored by A?

  32. on 26 Aug 2013 at 3:03 am 32.A said …

    “it can be replaced with common sense and current evidence.”

    oh, the SM is replaced with common sense I have high regard for common sense. So, stop stalling. Show how common sense points to a high information system like DNA forming out of soup and no programmer?

    Feel free to use the current evidence or even the mountain. Lol!! You know, the mountain of evidence yet you must revert to common sense instead? Lol!!

  33. on 26 Aug 2013 at 7:21 am 33.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said…erg…again…
    “Show how common sense points to a high information system like DNA forming out of soup and no programmer?”

    Haha, you think I believe that life originated from soup?
    Where did you get that idea? Have the priests been brainwashing you again?

    Since you believe that life came from a designed soup, explain how so.

    “Feel free to use the current evidence or even the mountain.”

    Evolution can be proved, abiogenesis, not so much.
    But it is the leading scientific theory.

  34. on 26 Aug 2013 at 2:31 pm 34.DPK said …

    “Feel free to use the current evidence or even the mountain.”

    Stalling? The evidence has already been presented. Ball is in your court to refute it, step by step, and present your evidence for your alternate theory of a designer.
    Hint, LOL does not constitute a counter argument.

    But sadly for you, you will have to “wade through it” first.

  35. on 26 Aug 2013 at 5:19 pm 35.A said …

    “The evidence has already been presented.”

    Tetrapod fossils indicate tetrapods existed. Nope, it is not evidence for ToE.

    Next! Only serious replies needed.

  36. on 26 Aug 2013 at 6:58 pm 36.DPK said …

    You pretending that you were not presented with a primer on evolution which you refused to even look at does begate the reality and makes you look rather ingenious… oh gasp.. surprise! hahaha… you silliness is outted yet again. The sad thing is you don’t even seem to care what an embarassment you are to yourself and your “side” as witnessed by the only people here who ever agree with you are you….

    Now, “lots of people believe in god” is only evidence that lots of people sometimes believe in things that are not real, and further testament to that is that lots and lots of people believe in gods that are not your god.
    So, got any evidence that gods exist, or that they intercede in the physical world in response to prayer?

    You got anything at all assman? I mean, you must have SOME reason that you believe it, right? Why won’t you tell us about it?

  37. on 26 Aug 2013 at 6:59 pm 37.DPK said …

    “does begate” should of course have been “does not negate”

  38. on 26 Aug 2013 at 11:58 pm 38.Angus and Alexis said …

    DPK, by reading the previous comments, i can stitch together his version of evolution.

    A believes that evolution is the process of life coming from soup (Preferably chicken noodle.) and then evolving from DNA into more advanced species.
    Of course he believes this soup, DNA and species were designed by a perfect being.
    He finds it hard to believe that nature can make species evolve, but finds magic to be the answer to everything. Because, hey, screw physics and shit.

  39. on 27 Aug 2013 at 12:17 am 39.A said …

    “He finds it hard to believe that nature can make species evolve,”

    Only because you and Dippy refuse to show evidence. Why are you holding out? It must be because neither of you know WHY you believe. You were told to believe and like good little soldiers you do. Sad you can’t think for yourselves.

    It is all clear now. This is why you must use links!

    lol!!!! How pathetic…

  40. on 27 Aug 2013 at 2:02 am 40.DPK said …

    Of course he believes this soup, DNA and species were designed by a perfect being

    A perfect being, of infinite intelligence, who also has a 99.9% failure rate when it comes to designing successful species. A perfect being, of infinite complexity, that was not designed or created by anything, directly violating his own premise that complexity proves design, and design proves a designer… But Nevermind that… A perfect being of infinite intelligence, who, after an infinite time of living a perfect existence, decided his existence wasn’t perfect after all and decided to created a flawed and imperfect race of humans to be his friends… Just because?

  41. on 27 Aug 2013 at 8:52 am 41.Anonymous said …

    But wait, there’s more! The Christian fable/logic falls flat on its face before the book is even opened.

    An perfect being must exist in a state of perfection. It cannot have wants and desires. Needing anything at all would make it imperfect. Instead, this perfect being needed friends and not just any friends, but friends to worship it. How… human.

    But wait, there’s more! A’s creator is also supposed to be omniscient. It couldn’t have existed in a state where it didn’t know it would later want for something. So, it either always knew it needed something, thus not being perfect compounded by it’s failure to resolve its own imperfection, or it wasn’t omniscient (ignoring the obvious that it’s a game of make-believe).

    Note that we haven’t even got to Chapter one and the story is already obviously, clearly, fucking ridiculous – to use a technical term.

    Just wait until we get to but about his god who had dementia, Alzheimer’s, and a serious psychosocial disorder.

    How else is A going to explain his omniscient god being surprised that the talking snake the god created with the foreknowledge of the snake’s purpose to tempt “Adam” would, (plot spoiler) tempt Adam. Who’d have guessed – it’s not like he had that many things to even worry about. Other than deliberately placing all those dinosaur fossils, or course.

    Then A’s perfect creator goes on to throw a wobbler and decides to punish a shit-load of innocent people, not yet born, for his creations doing exactly what they were supposed to do. Talk about projection.

    So, yeah, when you see the nonsense A has as his alternative, it’s obvious why he doesn’t want to talk about it.

    How many would want to admit that they were that fucking stupid to believe such a ludicrous story? Other than A and his minions of himself.

  42. on 27 Aug 2013 at 10:51 am 42.Angus and Alexis said …

    How about we get to the point and say perfection is not possible?

    Its a circular description.

    For example, i am perfect, i can lift anything.

    Ohh wait, i’m not perfect, as i cannot NOT lift anything.

    Okay then, i can not lift anything.

    But then i cannot lift anything.

    Perfect has no real definition, it is opinion based.

    Just like “normal”.

    That being said, we are debating with people who claim humans have no flaws, bah, we are a stupidly flawed species.
    Ohh what i would give for a pair of cephlopod eyes, or the ability to regenerate limbs or immortality.

  43. on 27 Aug 2013 at 11:45 am 43.freddies_dead said …

    602.A said …

    “He thinks the word Tetrapod is somehow being touted as proof for evolution”

    Huh, but you brought it up as proof of ToE, not me. So if you are not pontificating about the tetrapod, what is your proof using the SM? Lucy?, Embryos?, Moths? Come on, this is suppose to be a fact.

    You asked for evidence for the ToE found using the scientific method. I gave you Tiktaalik – a lobe finned fish with many features similar to tetrapods – which is evidence for the ToE that was found using the scientific method. It’s not my fault that you don’t understand the scientific method and didn’t believe there was any evidence. Maybe you should have prayed to God before asking the question? Don’t worry, we know why you didn’t. It’s because prayer is useless and your God does not exist.

    I can give you the gate voltage on a BJT and I can support it using the SM. Lets see you do the same. Drop your tetrapods now! Lol!!!

    I don’t believe that you can. See, you’ve shown time and again that you understand neither evidence nor the scientific method. Your mistaking of Tiktaalik for a tetrapod is just further evidence of your ignorance. Also, as DPK has shown, this ignorance is willful – you’re simply not interested in educating yourself because you’re terrified of what that will do to your delusional God belief.

    You seem quite flustered Freddie…………

    On the contrary, I’m finding this hugely amusing – it’s one of the only reasons to keep this conversation going. Watching you twist and turn to avoid giving evidence for your God. Watching you move the goalposts whenever your ignorance is shown to all. It’s quite phenomenal really.

    Any evidence for your God? Any evidence that prayer is something other than a waste of breath? No?

    Don’t worry, we know why.

  44. on 27 Aug 2013 at 12:55 pm 44.Angus and Alexis said …

    I posted this a while ago, but it got into moderation for some reason…
    A said.
    “Only because you and Dippy refuse to show evidence. Why are you holding out? It must be because neither of you know WHY you believe. You were told to believe and like good little soldiers you do. Sad you can’t think for yourselves.
    It is all clear now. This is why you must use links!
    lol!!!! How pathetic…”

    Well, A, you must understand that we are not top grade biologists, asking us for such stupidly complex answers is like asking a shop owner about rocket ship design.
    We post the links because they have evidence given by experts and are more valid.
    We dont believe, we know.

  45. on 27 Aug 2013 at 12:58 pm 45.Angus and Alexis said …

    Freddie said.
    ” It’s not my fault that you don’t understand the scientific method”

    Yeah…after writing an abridged version of the scientific method on evolution, he dismissed it…
    Sure, it was abridged and made for his six year old mind-set, but it was valid…for a six year old…

  46. on 27 Aug 2013 at 2:54 pm 46.DPK said …

    So, it is very interesting to note that the topic of this thread was “The Insanity of Christianity: Prayer Edition” and 647 posts later, I do not find one single theist in one single post offering any evidence that any gods actually intercede in the physical world in response to prayers, or that belief that they do is not, in fact, insane. Not one.

    Instead, all we get is the looney Stan, in his guise as “A” the Astrophysicist, repeatedly embarrassing himself by showing his ignorance about the theory of evolution, the scientific method, and other completely irrelevant nonsense. He myopically tries to focus his attention on an argument that the rest of the educated world settled over 50 years ago, as if the fate of his eternal life of happiness in the clouds with his personal friend, the creator of the universe, somehow depends on his refusal to accept the fact of evolution as the process by which complex life on earth developed from simpler forms.

    How tragic. No evidence for god, no evidence for prayer, not even an attempt at the usual testimonies about how my kid got sick, and after intense prayers (and 3 rounds of anti-biotics) he magically got better… praise Jesus! Not one story about how the tornado rolled through town but little Mary, who prayed to god, was miraculously saved… while hundreds of others, who without a doubt were either godless atheists or did not have the clarity of mind to pray, were swept away to their deaths. Not even a story about how praying to Jesus got me the job promotion I needed, or how he helped me find my reading glasses I had misplaced…. nuttin!

  47. on 27 Aug 2013 at 5:33 pm 47.A said …

    Frederick,

    I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. So this is the argument. Tiktaalik? simply a fish is proof of ToE? No longer attempting to link it to tetrapods, huh?

    lol!! Oh yeah, you have the SM down! Original thoughts are lonely in the dead Freddie mind! Lol!!

  48. on 27 Aug 2013 at 7:20 pm 48.A said …

    ” A, you must understand that we are not top grade biologists”

    Really Agnus? So it is is so complex you just take the word of particular biologist? Politicians love you. Ever considered opinions of top biologist who dissent? Ever considered all the creative drawings, guesses and assumptions made by the biologist? Ever considered that there is absolutely mechanism in nature that can created and program complex DNA?

    I am very close to a very good biologist and she dissents. If you can invoke a fallacy then I will as well :)

    Nah, easier to be a clone isn’t Agnus.

  49. on 28 Aug 2013 at 12:03 am 49.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “So it is is so complex you just take the word of particular biologist?”

    Umm, no, a majority of top grade scientists agree that evolution is the leading reason for current day biodiversity.

    “Politicians love you.”

    To be honest, i dislike politicians..

    “Ever considered opinions of top biologist who dissent?”

    You mean those few who have their own theories (Hur, dur, God did it, magic snakes woot…)?
    That, and they are a stupidly low minority.

    “Ever considered all the creative drawings, guesses and assumptions made by the biologist?”

    Science is about making guesses, what do you think estimations and predictions are?

    “Ever considered that there is absolutely mechanism in nature that can created and program complex DNA?”

    “that can created”….Seriously man…learn 2 grammer…

    And no, i do not consider a magical guy in the sky who made the universe.

    “I am very close to a very good biologist and she dissents.”

    I live with a sentient being in my head named Alexis.
    Not that i can prove it, do you honestly think i will take your word for truth? You already have shown to be a deceitful bastard.

    “If you can invoke a fallacy then I will as well :)”

    I’m not even to comment here…

    “Nah, easier to be a clone isn’t Agnus.”

    Last time i checked, human cloning is highly illegal.

  50. on 28 Aug 2013 at 1:52 am 50.A said …

    “I live with a sentient being in my head named Alexis.”

    Uh huh, check mate. Young man, seek some serious professional counseling. The last thing you need to be doing is attempting to discern if a God exists.

    I will leave you now. Find a quiet place.

  51. on 28 Aug 2013 at 3:32 am 51.DPK said …

    Notice, once again, all we get is the looney Stan, in his guise as “A” the Astrophysicist, repeatedly embarrassing himself by showing his ignorance about the theory of evolution, the scientific method, and other completely irrelevant nonsense. He myopically tries to focus his attention on an argument that the rest of the educated world settled over 50 years ago, as if the fate of his eternal life of happiness in the clouds with his personal friend, the creator of the universe, somehow depends on his refusal to accept the fact of evolution as the process by which complex life on earth developed from simpler forms.
    How tragic. No evidence for god, no evidence for prayer, not even an attempt.

  52. on 28 Aug 2013 at 7:57 am 52.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “Uh huh, check mate. Young man, seek some serious professional counseling. The last thing you need to be doing is attempting to discern if a God exists.
    I will leave you now. Find a quiet place.”

    Bah, i find your lack of information on the topic (tulpae) humorous.

    And remember, im not saying Alexis is magical, made the universe or knows everything.

  53. on 28 Aug 2013 at 10:45 am 53.freddies_dead said …

    647.A said …

    Frederick,

    I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    There is no doubt – the theory of evolution is the best explanation of current biodiversity. You disagree but refuse point blank to give your alternative. That’s your problem, not mine.

    So this is the argument. Tiktaalik? simply a fish is proof of ToE? No longer attempting to link
    it to tetrapods, huh?

    You’re reduced to twisting everything that anyone says because you have no evidence to support your own position. It was you that mistook Tiktaalik for a tetrapod, not I. I pointed out it was a fish with tetrapod-like characteristics. The kind of characteristics that show it to be a transitional form. One that supports the ToE and was found using the scientific method – exactly as you asked for but are now backing away from furiously as you have no answer for it.

    lol!! Oh yeah, you have the SM down! Original thoughts are lonely in the dead Freddie mind! Lol!!

    You wouldn’t recognise an original thought if it smacked you in the face with the jawbone of an ass.

    Where’s your evidence A? Still praying for it? Don’t worry, we know why you’re not getting an answer. It’s because prayer is useless because your God doesn’t exist.

  54. on 28 Aug 2013 at 11:01 am 54.A said …

    evolution is the best explanation of current biodiversity”

    The best? Lets see we have those claiming it is fact, it requires faith and then it is just the best explanation. Still not provable using the SM. It might be “best” but it still relies mostly on speculation and guesses and faith.

    I just don’t have that much faith. Let me know when you understand the nature of evidence.

  55. on 28 Aug 2013 at 2:28 pm 55.DPK said …

    ” Let me know when you understand the nature of evidence.”

    Glad you mentioned evidence Ass… do you happen to have any at all that your proposed god being actually exists or that he in fact intercedes in the physical world in response to praying? Anything??? Show us what you have to offer so we can see what standard the “nature of evidence” needs to meet.

    hahahahahahahahaha… what a load of bullshit.

  56. on 28 Aug 2013 at 2:34 pm 56.freddies_dead said …

    654.A said …

    “evolution is the best explanation of current biodiversity”

    The best?

    Even when you try to twist what I said i.e. I said “the theory of evolution is the best explanation of current biodiversity”, yes, yes it is the best. You think you have a better theory then go ahead and present it, and the evidence you think supports it.

    Lets see we have those claiming it is fact, it requires faith and then it is just the best explanation.

    The process of evolution is fact. Allele frequencies in populations change over time. You’ve even conceded this point when you said that “Microevolution is proven by science”. The fact that you think lots of small changes over long periods of time can’t cause big changes is irrelevant here. The theory of evolution explains how evolution causes the biodiversity we see – mutations, natural selection, genetic drift etc…

    It is only you that claims we need faith to believe it, everyone else just looks at the evidence. Of course evidence is something you simply don’t have for the alternative to ToE that you refuse to present.

    Still not provable using the SM.

    If only you understood the scientific method…

    It might be “best” but it still relies mostly on speculation and guesses and faith.

    No, now you’re talking about God belief. The theory of evolution rests on mountains of evidence gathered over 150+ years. We have comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, the faunal succession evident in the fossil record etc… etc… You’ve got … nothing. Not even an alternative theory, never mind the evidence to back it up.

    I just don’t have that much faith.

    Despite your dishonest claims, faith simply isn’t required.

    Let me know when you understand the nature of evidence.

    Yet another autobiographical statement from the king of ignorance.

    Did God answer your prayers for evidence yet A? No? Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total waste of time as your God does not exist.

  57. on 28 Aug 2013 at 5:23 pm 57.A said …

    “You think you have a better theory then go ahead and present it”

    Huh, so the reason ToE is true is because you don’t like other theories? What does this have to do with truth, evidence and the scientific method? If you don’t like your words twisted be a more effective communicator.

    Now I was told ToE is fact. So why can’t you provide irrefutable evidence?

  58. on 28 Aug 2013 at 5:28 pm 58.A said …

    “The fact that you think lots of small changes over long periods of time can’t cause big changes is irrelevant here”

    lol!! Actually no, it is the very issue you have yet to prove and believe in faith. Agnus believes because he was told to believe.

    Oh Frederick you are a hoot. Now provide some solid evidence using SM.

  59. on 28 Aug 2013 at 11:56 pm 59.Angus and Alexis said …

    A farted.
    “Agnus believes because he was told to believe.”

    Care to quote that?
    Don’t pull shit out of your ass, you…ass…

    “Actually no, it is the very issue you have yet to prove and believe in faith. ”

    Your very question is flawed, you cannot prove faith…
    Scientists all over the world, and many people all know about the simple fact that organisms mutate over time, leading to new species. AKA evolution.

    “Oh Frederick you are a hoot. Now provide some solid evidence using SM.”

    Trust me, i bet he would. In fact, he has.
    But he doesn’t do your version of the SM.
    He prefers using the actual one.

    “Huh, so the reason ToE is true is because you don’t like other theories?”

    No, it is true because not a single theist has ever even bothered to explain god using science, it always leads to failed knowledge, bullshit and circular logic.

    “What does this have to do with truth, evidence and the scientific method?”

    Nothing. Why?
    Because we are debating GOD and PRAYER.

    “Now I was told ToE is fact. So why can’t you provide irrefutable evidence?”

    Because your mind is a mental embodiment of a concrete slab, you cant learn anything, nor do you have the will power to stop being a troll and help the discussion.
    You are an embarrassment to theists over the globe, you are a failure of a blogger, and you fail at being a good person.

  60. on 29 Aug 2013 at 9:27 am 60.freddies_dead said …

    657.A said …

    “You think you have a better theory then go ahead and present it”

    Huh, so the reason ToE is true is because you don’t like other theories?

    As usual that’s not what I said. What I actually said is that the ToE is the best explanation for modern biodiversity due to the masses of evidence that supports the theory. It doesn’t matter what I feel about other theories, until they come up with evidence to support them they’re simply not in the mix.

    You seem to think your theory – whatever it may be as you seem frightened to even present it – has the evidence. So present the theory and the evidence you think supports it. If you were secure enough in your evidence then surely you’d be only too happy to tell us your theory, but time after time you dodge and weave and resort to plain old dishonesty to avoid shouldering your burden.

    What does this have to do with truth, evidence and the scientific method?

    Your twisting of what I say has absolutely nothing to do with “truth, evidence and the scientific method” and all to do with your dishonesty.

    If you don’t like your words twisted be a more effective communicator.

    It’s only because my communications are effective that you have to twist them. This is your problem, not mine.

    Now I was told ToE is fact.

    Not by me. I’ve always maintained that the process of evolution is fact whilst the theory of evolution is the best explanation of modern biodiversity. If you disagree then present your theory and show us the evidence that you think supports it.

    So why can’t you provide irrefutable evidence?

    The irrefutable evidence for the process of evolution is in the population genetics that shows allele frequencies in populations change over time.

    Your turn. What is your theory? What is the evidence that you think supports it?

    And, more relevant to this thread, where is the evidence for the God you claim to believe in? Are you still praying for that evidence to appear? Why do you think it’s not working? Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time due to your God being nonexistent.

  61. on 29 Aug 2013 at 9:37 am 61.freddies_dead said …

    658.A said …

    “The fact that you think lots of small changes over long periods of time can’t cause big changes is irrelevant here”

    lol!! Actually no, it is the very issue you have yet to prove and believe in faith.

    Nope, not a problem. Comparative genomics, comparative anatomy and the evidence of faunal succession in the fossil record means I don’t need your reliance on faith as I have the evidence.

    Agnus believes because he was told to believe.

    Oh Frederick you are a hoot. Now provide some solid evidence using SM.

    Already done and you had no answer to it. Once again, your problem, not mine.

    Now back to the point of the thread. How are the prayers working out for you? We’re still waiting for you to present the evidence given to you by your God in response to your earnest prayers. What’s the matter? Are you not praying earnestly enough? Is it ’cause God hates liars that He’s ignoring you? Don’t worry, we know why it’s not working. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time due to your God being nonexistent.

  62. on 29 Aug 2013 at 11:19 am 62.A said …

    “best explanation for modern biodiversity due to the masses of evidence that supports the theory?

    Now Frederick proceeds to fallacy of Argumentum ad populum. Do you believe in God too?

    You failed again. Using the SM show us that ToE is true Yes I know us and the great apes have four limbs and a brain but this does not prove ToE. Lol!!!

    You don’t believe prayer works? Not my problem its yours. Lol!!!!

  63. on 29 Aug 2013 at 12:33 pm 63.freddies_dead said …

    662.A said …

    “best explanation for modern biodiversity due to the masses of evidence that supports the theory?

    Now Frederick proceeds to fallacy of Argumentum ad populum.

    And now A proceeds to show his complete ignorance of the meaning of fallacies. Argumentum ad populum is an argument which concludes that a proposition is true based on the number of people who believe that proposition to be true. My argument actually rests on the masses of evidence which supports the theory not the number of people who believe the theory to be true.

    And A tries to suggest I don’t understand the nature of evidence when he can’t even distinguish between evidence and people. It’s just laughable really.

    Do you believe in God too?

    No. That really would be an argumentum ad populum. Personally, I feel there’s no point believing in things that do not exist – like Gods, unicorns, fairies, angels, demons and ghosts.

    You failed again.

    At what? Giving you evidence that a) supports the ToE and b) was found using the scientific method? Nope, did that. Giving you irrefutable evidence for the process of evolution? Nope, did that too.

    I think the only thing I’ve failed at here is to get you to present your alternate theory and the the evidence you think supports it although it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been waiting a long time already and I’m pretty damned sure we’re not going to get anything because you have nothing.

    Using the SM show us that ToE is true Yes I know us and the great apes have four limbs and a brain but this does not prove ToE. Lol!!!

    Already done. Your denial of the facts doesn’t change those facts, it just makes you look even more of an idiot.

    You don’t believe prayer works? Not my problem its yours. Lol!!!!

    Of course I don’t believe prayer works. All the evidence shows that prayer doesn’t work. If you don’t agree then present your evidence that intercessory prayer actually works. Don’t worry, we know why you haven’t. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time due to your God being nonexistent.

  64. on 29 Aug 2013 at 2:29 pm 64.DPK said …

    “Now Frederick proceeds to fallacy of Argumentum ad populum.”

    ahhahahahahahaha… this from the “science guy” who in post 608 offered as “evidence” for god “man and all the human beings who know God exists…” So, you think it’s a fallacy when Freddie uses it, even though as he pointed out, he is not using the argument from majority at all, you are lying, but when you use it it’s logic. No wonder you’re confused sonny. Let me guess, did a lot of acid in the 70’s huh?

    Great responses Freddie… you’d think the ass man would be tired of being continually embarrassed and bitch-slapped and made the fool with his ridiculous statements. No wonder even all the other theists have abandoned him, he makes their side look so foolish, not to mention devious and deceitful. Time to root through the sock drawer to find some supporters Stan.

  65. on 29 Aug 2013 at 3:56 pm 65.Angus and Alexis said …

    And again Freddie has the effort to blow the utter crap out of A’s stupid arguments.

    I award thy man with a cookie and ze interwebs.

  66. on 29 Aug 2013 at 8:39 pm 66.A said …

    ” Frederick proceeds to fallacy of Argumentum ad populum. Do you believe in God too?”

    Oh, yes correct, that was Agnus. Frederick just teases. All this mass of evidence but refuses to present any. Maybe like Agnus you admit you don’t understand and just believe like a good soldier? Lol!!!

    Let look at Fredericks proof:
    fish
    embryos
    moths
    four limbs
    a brain

    That about cover it? Lol!!!!

    Your refusal to provide evidence is not my problem. Lol!!

  67. on 29 Aug 2013 at 8:55 pm 67.DPK said …

    and your refusal to “wade through” the evidence you are presented is not ours.

    You are so comical in your schoolyard games… tragic and pathetic, but comical nonetheless.

    Now… have any evidence that your god exists or that he answers prayers in the physical world? If not, please shut up, as your ridiculous fixation with the completely off topic subject of evolution is really tiresome.
    Got anything at all there Ace? Surely you must have SOME reason to believe?

  68. on 29 Aug 2013 at 10:51 pm 68.chorizo said …

    “The process of evolution is fact”

    It is but speciation is not which is what A is referring. Anyone worth their salt knows speciation is not fact and cannot be observed since mankind cannot live along enough to put it to the test.

  69. on 29 Aug 2013 at 11:53 pm 69.Angus and Alexis said …

    669.chorizo said …
    “It is but speciation is not which is what A is referring. Anyone worth their salt knows speciation is not fact and cannot be observed since mankind cannot live along enough to put it to the test.”

    Ohh look, a drive by theist!
    How interesting.
    We can’t put nuclear fusion to the test, yet we know for fact it exists and takes place in the sun (well, all stars…).
    As a tip, everything does not need to be tested…

  70. on 30 Aug 2013 at 12:34 am 70.DPK said …

    So you are saying that because you can’t watch mountain ranges form that they therefore must have always been there? What a stupid statement.
    You can’t observe continental drift, does that mean it is not real?
    Direct observation is not the only form of evidence that meets the scientific method. We cannot observe subatomic particles but we can prove they exist.
    Perhaps you are braver than “A” and will actually take the time to “wade through” some of the scientifically supported evidence for speciation. Then come back with a point by point rebuttal and show us specifically how 99% of the accredited scientific community is completely wrong about speciation. This should be good.
    http://evolution.berkeley (dot) edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml

  71. on 30 Aug 2013 at 1:04 am 71.A said …

    “It is but speciation is not which is what A is referring”

    Exactly Chlor and when the shrills run around claiming it is fact and there is mountains of evidence they should be ridiculed. Unless…..they can produce a few shreds right here

    DPK, what in your link proves ToE? Lets see if YOU looked at it.

    And, if Agnus(get help young fella)is correct nothing needs to be tested, right? That makes it pretty easy just to believe anything like Agnus’ tulip. Lol!!!

  72. on 30 Aug 2013 at 8:15 am 72.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “And, if Agnus(get help young fella)is correct nothing needs to be tested, right?”
    Never said such a stupid thing, stop making incorrect quotes.
    “That makes it pretty easy just to believe anything like Agnus’ tulip. Lol!!!”
    Tulpae are a well recorded phenomonom dated back to the anicent tibetians.
    “Exactly Chlor and when the shrills run around claiming it is fact and there is mountains of evidence they should be ridiculed. Unless…..they can produce a few shreds right here”
    Im assuming you believe nuclear fusion, mountain creation and sub atomic particles are just “Fantasies” and are made by satan to make people into evil atheists?

  73. on 30 Aug 2013 at 8:35 am 73.freddies_dead said …

    666.A said … <– midly amusing

    ” Frederick proceeds to fallacy of Argumentum ad populum. Do you believe in God too?”

    Oh, yes correct, that was Agnus. Frederick just teases. All this mass of evidence but refuses to present any.

    I presented exactly what you asked for and you’ve pretty much run away from it screaming.

    Maybe like Agnus you admit you don’t understand and just believe like a good soldier? Lol!!!

    Let look at Fredericks proof:
    fish
    embryos
    moths
    four limbs
    a brain

    That about cover it? Lol!!!!

    Only if you’re deliberately dishonest about what you’ve been presented with – as you are. And only if you willfully ignore the 150+ years of evidence you’ve been pointed to – as you have.

    Your refusal to provide evidence is not my problem. Lol!!

    There was no refusal on my part, only refusal to accept you’d been given what you asked for on yours. Don’t worry, we know why.

  74. on 30 Aug 2013 at 9:31 am 74.freddies_dead said …

    668.chorizo said …

    “The process of evolution is fact”

    It is but speciation is not which is what A is referring. Anyone worth their salt knows speciation is not fact and cannot be observed since mankind cannot live along enough to put it to the test.

    Oh dear. Another one with either no knowledge of the science or who knows about it but lies for Jesus. Which one are you chorizo?

    Simply Googling for “observed instances of speciation” will give you a wealth of resources demonstrating that speciation is real and it has been observed.

    Of course you’re not really asking for instances of speciation are you? You’ll simply dismiss all those examples as they’re not changes in “kinds” i.e. the Biblical get out of jail free card, because you’ll never define “kinds” in such a way that it would be useful in biological terms.

  75. on 30 Aug 2013 at 9:43 am 75.freddies_dead said …

    671.A said …

    “It is but speciation is not which is what A is referring”

    Exactly Chlor and when the shrills run around claiming it is fact and there is mountains of evidence they should be ridiculed.

    Your attempts at ridicule are lame but we recognise that it’s all you’ve got. After all, if you had an alternate theory you would present both it and the evidence you think supports it. Right A?

    Unless…..they can produce a few shreds right here

    We’ve already given you way more than “a few shreds” but, by you’re own admission, you’re not willing to examine the evidence. Subsequently denying the evidence has been provided just shows you as the deceitful worm that you are.

    Anyway, back to the point of the post. Have you any evidence for your God yet A (chorizo is welcome to help out if they can)? Any evidence that your God answers prayers? What’s the matter? Prayer not working for you? It’s OK, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God does not exist.

  76. on 30 Aug 2013 at 12:29 pm 76.A said …

    “you willfully ignore the 150+ years of evidence you’ve been pointed to – as you have”

    Huh, …you have hid them well. Did you count all of them? Provide the links and/or post # so we can examine said evidence. I hope it is not another fish….lol!!!

    Now is ToE fact or nor? Dawkins, Krauss and Agnus say yes, Frederick. young professor from UA say it is not. So which is it?

    I am ready to believe.

  77. on 30 Aug 2013 at 12:34 pm 77.A said …

    “you’ll never define “kinds” in such a way that it would be useful in biological terms.”

    What’s wrong Frederick? Yo wanna define kinds as brown haired cats vs white haired cats so your theory will stand? Lol!!

    so pathetic

  78. on 30 Aug 2013 at 3:07 pm 78.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “Now is ToE fact or nor? Dawkins, Krauss and Agnus say yes, Frederick. young professor from UA say it is not. So which is it?”

    Please get some reading lessons or something.
    I said evolution is fact. The theory? Its a theory, and the best one so far.

    “Huh, …you have hid them well. Did you count all of them? Provide the links and/or post # so we can examine said evidence. I hope it is not another fish….lol!!!”

    Google is the key…

    “What’s wrong Frederick? Yo wanna define kinds as brown haired cats vs white haired cats so your theory will stand? Lol!!”

    No, he was poking the fact that your standard theist will often say “Hue, that fish didn’t turn into a dog, therefore evolution is false.”

    “so pathetic”

    More pathetic than a person who considers humans some kind of superior life form that for some reason has something called a soul? When in all reality we are just another species on the planet.

  79. on 30 Aug 2013 at 4:07 pm 79.DPK said …

    “More pathetic than a person who considers humans some kind of superior life form that for some reason has something called a soul? When in all reality we are just another species on the planet.”

    and a rather short lived one at that… not only do they think we are special on earth, they think that some magical being created the entire universe for the sole purpose of making us! hahahahaha…. hubris to the 20th power.

  80. on 30 Aug 2013 at 5:23 pm 80.DPK said …

    Notice how once again, “A” has invented a drive by theist in the guise of one hit wonder chorizo to try and divert attention away from the fact he has presented ZERO evidence for his god, or for prayer… and tries to rekindle interest in his evolution fetish.
    As has been said so many times my eyes hurt from reading it… evolution could be proven completely wrong tomorrow and totally discarded… it wouldn’t matter one bit to the the subject of this board, which is god and religion in the world, and specifically to this thread, now approaching 700 fucking posts… NONE of them from the theists side (which is now ass, all alone with his sock puppets) having anything to do with prayer.
    All we get is mindlessly stupid comments from the resident ass-hole about tulips and tetra-pods.
    So, for the love of gods… ANY of them… will the moderators please close this thread, or baring that, will any of the theists have the intellectual integrity to actually address any of the relevant issues?
    Is anyone going to offer ANY reason for us to think that theists who believe god affects the physical world in response to prayer are not insane? One of the definitions of insanity is believing things that clearly are not true. The complete lack of any argument to the contrary seems to indicate that the theists concede that prayer in fact, does not have any effect, yet they believe it anyway… ergo, insane.

  81. on 30 Aug 2013 at 5:57 pm 81.A said …

    “evolution could be proven completely wrong tomorrow and totally discarded”

    Interesting ……how could that happen to cause you to lose faith?

    chorzo,

    Should have mentioned earlier. You will be called one of my puppets. I am everyone on the blog….lol!!!! Just another distraction by the atheists.

  82. on 30 Aug 2013 at 6:48 pm 82.DPK said …

    683.A said …

    “yap yap yap… evolution…….”

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    Got any god evidence Ass… besides “lots of people believe in gods?”

    Anything else is just your ass cheeks flapping in the wind.

  83. on 30 Aug 2013 at 7:01 pm 83.A said …

    “Got any god evidence”

    Absolutely! It has been provided here many times. As Agnus would say, Google is a great tool. Then again, you are not a theologian so I an sure you would not understand. lol!! Thanks Tulip!

    Now, would cause you drop your faith in ToE Dippy?

  84. on 30 Aug 2013 at 7:56 pm 84.DPK said …

    “Absolutely! It has been provided here many times.”

    Liar.

    The only thing ever presented here are complete fallacies… the “you can’t prove exactly how DNA formed”… (therefore god must be real).
    and
    The majority of people believe in a god.

    That it? what else you got because neither of those is evidence. You’re the one who claim to understand the nature of evidence… come on, you gotta do way better than that for anyone to take you even remotely seriously.
    For instance, do you have any actual evidence to suggest that gods intercede in the physical world in response to prayers, and can you reconcile the idea of gods granting wishes with the idea of omniscience?
    I’ll give you one more chance out of pity, but I know where this is going… tulips and fish again, right Assman?
    “Now, would cause you drop your faith in ToE Dippy?”
    I dunno…rabbits in the Precambrian era? hahaha
    I don’t have to worry about that I don’t think, but to answer succinctly, evidence to the contrary.

  85. on 30 Aug 2013 at 9:00 pm 85.A said …

    “but I know where this is going… tulips and fish again, right”

    Nope that is your ToE evidence. I am not going to wade through the thousands if evidence for you. Your laziness is not my problem. lol!!!! Thanks Freddie!

    I only use the same tactics used by the ToE contingent. Only fair right Dippy?

  86. on 30 Aug 2013 at 9:10 pm 86.DPK said …

    There you go lying again.

    How can you tell when Ass is lying? Words appear.
    Show me where you have presented “thousands if evidence”? I hope it’s not housed at the same community college where you learned grammar and astrophysics. I’ll wade through it… as long as it isn’t the same old tired, failed arguments that have been defeated here time and time again. Lets see some actual evidence that gods exist and that they answer prayers. A link will do.

  87. on 30 Aug 2013 at 10:08 pm 87.A said …

    ” long as it isn’t the same old tired, failed arguments that have been defeated here time and time again”

    Let me know when you defeat one so we can be a witness.

    That should have been “thousands of years Dippy”. Its called a virtual keyboard and I still do better than Alex. Lol!!!!

    Want a more engaging discussion, show me the same evidence for ToE you require for God. I give what I get :).

  88. on 30 Aug 2013 at 11:32 pm 88.DPK said …

    If you can make a case for why the theory of evolution is necessary to the discussion of gods, we can consider it. Until then, it’s just an irrelevant sideshow.
    Now you mentioned “thousands of years of evidence”… Ok, which god does these thousands of years of evidence supposedly support? Zeus perhaps?

  89. on 31 Aug 2013 at 1:27 am 89.Anonymous said …

    “show me the same evidence for ToE you require for God.”

    Littlest “a”; How is that possible? By your own admission god gets a free pass. There is no hypothesis, no theory of god. Only acceptance or rejection. The gods come in many flavours and one gets to choose at ones discretion. Once acceptance is completed, questioning the deities existence must cease.

    Back from holidays and we’re at 688 entries. Single character moniker “a” maintains a single digit IQ after reading a handful of their bleats.

  90. on 31 Aug 2013 at 4:47 am 90.Angus and Alexis said …

    DPK said
    “Zeus perhaps?”

    *sarcasm activate*

    Silly DPK, Odin and Thor are the real gods, i have heaps of proof, google it, you cant disprove it, he talks to me, he answers my prayers, open your heart, hitler was an atheist, evolution *fap*

    Wait, was it Odin or Allah? Cant remember who was the one. Maybe it was the thousand hindu gods that was the real one.

  91. on 31 Aug 2013 at 1:41 pm 91.DPK said …

    Angus, you forgot that you can’t prove Socrates existed, you can’t watch a fish turn into an amphibian, so therefore Jesus is only god. Makes sense, right?
    I wonder if the thousands of years of evidence will start with the eyewitness account of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace, or if we will skip right to the burning bush that talks to you. Hmmmm

  92. on 31 Aug 2013 at 1:46 pm 92.Angus and Alexis said …

    *more sarcasm*

    You silly atheists think man came from apes? Why do we still have apes then, checkmate.

    Meanwhile i demand that you believe that man was made from dirt and magic, and women were made from ribs and magic.

    I also demand that you believe that snakes can talk.

  93. on 31 Aug 2013 at 2:56 pm 93.michelle said …

    Alex,

    please check wwghatoday

  94. on 31 Aug 2013 at 4:20 pm 94.Angus and Alexis said …

    695.michelle said …
    “Alex,
    please check wwghatoday”

    What the hell is this even referring to?
    No seriously, how is this relevant?

  95. on 02 Sep 2013 at 12:27 pm 95.freddies_dead said …

    676.A said …

    “you willfully ignore the 150+ years of evidence you’ve been pointed to – as you have”

    Huh, …you have hid them well.

    Hid what well? And hidden it where? On the internet? Where you can use Google to find it all? It’s not my fault you’re an idiot incapable of using a simple search facility.

    Did you count all of them? Provide the links and/or post # so we can examine said evidence. I hope it is not another fish….lol!!!

    You really are that thick. It’s astonishing you can actually feed and clothe yourself.

    Now is ToE fact or nor?

    The ToE is the best explanation for modern biodiversity. You disagree? Then present your alternate and the evidence you think supports it.

    You won’t of course. Because you have neither an alternate theory or the evidence to back it up.

    Dawkins, Krauss and Agnus say yes,

    Citation very much needed.

    Frederick. young professor from UA say it is not. So which is it?

    I am ready to believe.

    This, of course, is a lie. Your constant refusal to examine the evidence presented is proof of that.

    What’s the matter A? Still waiting for the prayers to pay off? God still ignoring your requests for enlightenment? Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God doesn’t exist.

  96. on 02 Sep 2013 at 12:38 pm 96.freddies_dead said …

    677.A said …

    “you’ll never define “kinds” in such a way that it would be useful in biological terms.”

    What’s wrong Frederick?

    Nothing wrong with me. Your refusal to act honestly in this discussion is your problem, not mine.

    Yo wanna define kinds as brown haired cats vs white haired cats so your theory will stand? Lol!!

    Nope. Just pick a definition you think you can justify and stick with it. As it is, creationists are only too happy to be absolutely dishonest and use the term to mean everything from a species to an order or even a class. Such dishonesty is only to be expected when you have no alternate theory and no evidence to back up the “goddidit” claim.

    so pathetic

    It truly is. Any chance you’ll buck the trend? Give us a solid definition of “kind”. Then justify why said definition applies to biology in such a way that it demonstrates that the ToE is falsified as it does not have speciation events which conform to the definition of “kind” that you’ve justified.

    Of course you can always stick with being a dishonest creationist fuckwad who’ll use the meaningless version of “kind” to carry on denying evolution for its failure to conform to your bizarro version and meaningless terms.

    I suspect you’ll go with the latter.

    Why is that A? You scared at your lack of an answer to your prayers? Don’t worry, we know why you’re not getting your answer. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God does not exist.

  97. on 02 Sep 2013 at 2:42 pm 97.A said …

    “The ToE is the best explanation for modern biodiversity. You disagree”

    As much as I believe primordial soup designs and produces a man. Yeah, I am not buying. Now produce some evidence I will reconsider. Need more than fish with a fin. Lol!!!

    “Nope. Just pick a definition you think you can justify and stick with it”

    Why? You brought it up up little guy. Go ahead tell us what constitutes proof that all living things evolved from that first cell. Remember, that first cell you can’t determine the origin of? Share you definition if you like.

    lol!!! Oh yeah, I am so scared. I’m ready to believe. Do you have the goods little guy?

  98. on 02 Sep 2013 at 11:59 pm 98.Angus and Alexis said …

    “As much as I believe primordial soup designs and produces a man. Yeah, I am not buying.”

    Well, well, well, here is our problem.
    A thinks ToE equals abiogenesis, what a laugh.
    Did the priests tell you this? Because its horribly incorrect.

    ” Now produce some evidence I will reconsider.”

    Done to death, and you still want to beat the horse?

    “Need more than fish with a fin. Lol!!!”

    Nice to know that you ignore the obvious fact that it is a transitional fossil (all fossils are transitional…), despite the fact that you asked for one.

    “Go ahead tell us what constitutes proof that all living things evolved from that first cell.”

    What do you propose happened instead of everything coming from one cell?

    “Remember, that first cell you can’t determine the origin of?”

    Remember the god that you cant even prove?
    Ohh wait, i forgot that “Magic” and “Goddidit” counts as proof. Whoops.

    ” Oh yeah, I am so scared.”

    Wouldn’t anyone who has their worldview smashed the pieces? (Although, your too ignorant to get scared.)

    ” I’m ready to believe.”

    I doubt it.

    “Do you have the goods little guy?”

    Already delivered the package, unless you want crystal meth, that is like…expensive…
    (disclaimer: i dont do meth.)

  99. on 03 Sep 2013 at 1:22 am 99.40 Year Atheist said …

    What ideologues use as a commonly claimed falsification which is proposed for evolution is the discovery of a rabbit in PreCambrian deposits. But there is no reason to think that the ever-modified theory of evolution (the heart of biology) would not be modified yet again to accommodate such a thing. Why? Because finding a rabbit in a deposit is not conclusive; it is not an unquestionable falsification of evolution. There is no observation of how the rabbit got into that deposit.

    The falsification of evolution is ignored and derided: it is falsified by its lack of deductive, predictive capability in the actual, real science of biology. One cannot take a rabbit, or a population of rabbits, or a population of Darwin’s Finches, or fish in lake Malawi, and predict a future species which will occur, much less when. The theory of evolution is completely without discrimination when it comes to predicting what will happen to species: anything could come out of evolution. Anything is not an acceptable scientific conclusion, unless there is an ideological component involved.

    As Vox points out, Daniel Dennett claims that because Physics works with precision (Newtonian anyway), that gives credibility to evolution. That is the weakest Appeal To Authority possible. When evolution can predict future consequence of evolution, rather than merely predict other instances of induction, then and only then will it be on a par with physics; then and only then will it be of any significant value to actual biological science, which could then use it to predict biological outcomes. Then and only then will it derive, for itself, credibility and respect outside of the circles of ideology who use it for Scientism, Materialism and Atheism (and its fans). It has interest from an inductive-only standpoint; it has no interest for valid worldviews.

    Worldviews ask questions like “why are there laws of nature?”, rather than merely “What are the laws of nature?”. It is irrational for the knowledge of the laws of nature to include the attitude that “there is no why, there are only ever more whats” of material knowledge. Yet there is no possible knowledge contained within “whats” that addresses the “whys”, much less negates them. The assertion that there can be no “whys” is not a product of either empiricism or logic. It is ideological. And to delare the “why” to be an illegitimate question as some Atheist philosophers have done, is irrational.

    The supposed advocates of “reason and evidence” cannot provide the reason and evidence which can address the supposed lack of “whys”, and they will never be able to: it is a Category Error. The advocates will never, ever, admit that, however. The reason is that they they have accepted the unsupportable Principle Of Materialism, and they have done that without either evidence or logic for its validity. It is thus a religious belief, a faith without evidence or reasoning. And that reflects clear back to the use of evolution for ideological and worldview purposes: it is a religious faith

  100. on 03 Sep 2013 at 3:35 am 100.DPK said …

    “The falsification of evolution is ignored and derided: it is falsified by its lack of deductive, predictive capability in the actual, real science of biology. One cannot take a rabbit, or a population of rabbits, or a population of Darwin’s Finches, or fish in lake Malawi, and predict a future species which will occur, much less when. ”

    This statement again shows Stan / A’s fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. Evolution is not a directed process, it has no end purpose or goal that can be “predicted”. What can be predicted is that populations will change over time in response to mutations and natural selections. It predicts that changes that coincide with advantages in survival will be successful, and those that are not will die out. This is exactly what we see in nature, and it is exactly why 99.9 percent of species that ever existed on earth are now extinct. This is certainly not what one would expect to see from a perfect, infinitely intelligent “designer” or from a directed process.
    The rest of the argument, based on a false premise, is dismissed.

  101. on 03 Sep 2013 at 9:52 am 101.freddies_dead said …

    697.A said …

    “The ToE is the best explanation for modern biodiversity. You disagree”

    As much as I believe primordial soup designs and produces a man.

    This is not what the ToE says. Your lame strawman can be summarily dismissed. Are you going to define “kind(s)” yet? If not, why not?

    Yeah, I am not buying.

    I’m not buying your pathetic strawman either. Are you going to define “kind(s)” yet? If not, why not?

    Now produce some evidence I will reconsider. Need more than fish with a fin. Lol!!!

    Already done you lying sack of shit. Are you going to define “kind(s)” yet? If not, why not?

    “Nope. Just pick a definition you think you can justify and stick with it”

    Why?

    To stop the term being meaningless. If you can’t do it, that’s fine, we know why.

    You brought it up up little guy.

    It’s part of the creationists’ bizarro version of the ToE, not mine. You espouse creationism, it’s your term. Your refusal to define it – along with your refusal to present an alternate theory and the evidence to support it – is totally unsurprising. It’s because you have nothing and all your prayers are coming up empty. Don’t worry, we know why that is.

    Go ahead tell us what constitutes proof that all living things evolved from that first cell.

    I’ve already pointed you to the evidence and, by your own admission, you’re not prepared to look at it. That’s your problem, not mine.

    Remember, that first cell you can’t determine the origin of?

    No-one here has claimed to know the origin of the first cell but as Angus has already noted, that’s abiogenesis, not evolution. However, if you’re wondering about the scientific examination of the origins of life you can start with the Miller/Urey experiments and go from there. It’s not at all conclusive but does suggest that life could have come from simple chemical precursors.

    Now obviously you think “goddidit”, so you’ll be presenting the evidence for your God’s existence and the evidence that shows that He indeed created man from dust and spoke the rest of the animals into existence sometime in the last 10,000 years or so. If not, why not? Are your prayers for enlightenment still failing? Don’t worry, we know why.

    Share you definition if you like.

    This is more incoherent than usual. Maybe you could clarify what this random assortment of words was supposed to mean.

    lol!!! Oh yeah, I am so scared.

    We know. Your refusal to accept your burden of proof is ample evidence of that.

    I’m ready to believe.

    This is a lie. You self-confessed refusal to even consider the evidence is ample proof of that.

    Do you have the goods little guy?

    I do. You don’t though. What’s the matter A? God still ignoring your pleas for evidence? Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God doesn’t exist.

  102. on 03 Sep 2013 at 12:57 pm 102.freddies_dead said …

    699.40 Year Atheist said …

    A whole host of crap about evolution which mostly just demonstrates that he knows very little about evolution.

    More importantly, of course, it had fuck all to do with the topic of the thread. It does nothing but attempt to divert the conversation away from the efficacy – or rather the total lack of it – of intercessory prayer.

    Well Stan. Did you get your evolution info through praying to your God? If so, I’d ask for your prayer back.

    Let’s get down to business Stan. What evidence do you have to show that your God a) exists and b) answers prayers?

  103. on 03 Sep 2013 at 5:46 pm 103.A said …

    The falsification of evolution is ignored and derided: it is falsified by its lack of deductive, predictive capability in the actual, real science of biology

    Absolutely 40YA which is why this whole group of angry atheists refuse to provide one shred of evidence which will hold up to the SM. Yet, they will not accept the same evidence for God. Exposing their religion causes them to go ballistic and come back with personal attacks. Problems with ToE? Just ignore them and hide them if at all possible. Can’t speak negatively about the dogma!

  104. on 03 Sep 2013 at 8:34 pm 104.freddies_dead said …

    703.A said …

    Absolutely 40YA which is why this whole group of angry atheists refuse to provide one shred of evidence which will hold up to the SM.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire. Your self-confessed refusal to consider the evidence does not mean the evidence has not been presented.

    Yet, they will not accept the same evidence for God.

    You have yet to provide anything even close to the likes of Tiktaalik as evidence for your God. You’re welcome to try anytime you’re ready.

    Exposing their religion causes them to go ballistic and come back with personal attacks.

    As neither evolution nor atheism is a religion, I have to ask, to what religion are you referring?

    Problems with ToE?

    The failure to explain the origins of the first cell isn’t actually a problem for the ToE as you have been told numerous times.

    Just ignore them and hide them if at all possible.

    As evolution doesn’t cover abiogenesis and you haven’t described any other “problems” there’s nothing for us to ignore or hide.

    Can’t speak negatively about the dogma!

    Talking of dogma, lets get back to the whole point of the thread. Prayer. Now Christian dogma insists that God will answer prayers. Do you have any evidence that your God a) exists and b) answers prayers? What’s the matter A? Why are you still refusing to provide your evidence? Is it because your God is still ignoring you? Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God doesn’t exist.

  105. on 03 Sep 2013 at 10:01 pm 105.DPK said …

    “Talking of dogma, lets get back to the whole point of the thread. Prayer. Now Christian dogma insists that God will answer prayers. Do you have any evidence that your God a) exists and b) answers prayers?”

    Well, on topic… here’s something to think about. I have a neighbor who believes that burying a statue of St. Joseph upside down in his front yard will help his house to sell faster. Seriously? This man is a respected lawyer… a rational an intelligent person. Yet, he actually believes that burying a plastic idol head down in his yard will evoke some magical power that will cause god to compel some individual to purchase his home at or near his asking price.
    In this day and age… really?? This is the world in which we live, where otherwise intelligent people believe in ridiculous superstitious nonsense.

  106. on 04 Sep 2013 at 12:01 am 106.Curmudgeon said …

    I think the blogmaster has abandoned the blog. Two months and nothing new.

    40 you mentioned Vox who I enjoy reading immensely. He wrote a book a few years back “The Irrational Atheist”. A great read and gives some good insight on to why atheist are so deluded and can’t see what is so obvious to the rest of us.

  107. on 04 Sep 2013 at 12:30 am 107.DPK said …

    Does mr. Vox believe that burying a statue head down will get god to make your house sell? If not, why not?

  108. on 04 Sep 2013 at 6:58 am 108.Angus and Alexis said …

    “708.Curmudgeon said …”

    Whoa, hold on there, using three accounts at once to make a flawed point? Come on.

  109. on 04 Sep 2013 at 9:48 am 109.freddies_dead said …

    706.Curmudgeon said …

    40 you mentioned Vox who I enjoy reading immensely. He wrote a book a few years back “The Irrational Atheist”. A great read and gives some good insight on to why atheist are so deluded and can’t see what is so obvious to the rest of us.

    Does Mr Beale have any evidence that intercessory prayer works? Or even that his God exists at all?

    I always find it amusing that someone whose worldview is built on the shifting sands of subjectivism and relies on so many stolen concepts as the theists worldview does, has the temerity to call anyone else “irrational”.

    And someone who believes in talking snakes and apocalyptic zombie rabbis really shouldn’t talk about sane people having delusions either, it just makes them look hypocritical.

  110. on 04 Sep 2013 at 2:16 pm 110.DPK said …

    I love how “Stan” shows up out of the blue, cuts and pastes a fallacious “argument” from his website which demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of evolution at its very core, and then the “other Stans” as if on cue, suddenly show up out of the mist to tell him how brilliant he is. Priceless. It’s like watching a car full of clowns pull into the center ring and go crazy.

  111. on 04 Sep 2013 at 2:19 pm 111.DPK said …

    And not one of the socks has the balls to tell me if my neighbor, who apparently CAN “see what is so obvious to the rest of us…” has a rational reason to believe that burying a plastic statue upside down in his front yard will in fact invoke their god to make his house sell. I mean, is he deluded, or do you agree with him? Why do you avoid that question?

  112. on 05 Sep 2013 at 2:56 am 112.A said …

    Can anyone tell me why the atheist down the road will not walk under ladders?

    Can anyone tell me why atheists use faith to believe in Speciation? Obviously no evidence since they will not provide it.

  113. on 05 Sep 2013 at 6:54 am 113.Angus and Alexis said …

    After a sock puppet invasion, A has the nerve to write…
    “Can anyone tell me why the atheist down the road will not walk under ladders?”

    Because they are afraid of falling items?
    Because ladders are known for falling (due to faulty locking mechanisms…)?
    Because they believe ladders are bad luck?
    Again, what is with you and generalizing atheists?

    “Can anyone tell me why atheists use faith to believe in Speciation?”

    No, no one can.
    Why?
    Because its a proven event.

    “Obviously no evidence since they will not provide it.”

    Already gave evidence (well, ok, Freddie and DPK did…).

  114. on 05 Sep 2013 at 11:32 am 114.A said …

    “Already gave evidence (well, ok, Freddie and DPK did…).”

    Great! Lets see the evidence! GLAD to see you agree with me Dual Personality. We don’t need to answer why others do certain thongs right DP?

  115. on 05 Sep 2013 at 11:54 am 115.freddies_dead said …

    712.A said …

    Can anyone tell me why the atheist down the road will not walk under ladders?

    Because he’s partial to a bit of turtle on a Wednesday evening?

    You do realise that the only thing that links all atheists is their stance when it comes to Gods right? i.e. that they don’t believe in them.

    There’s nothing in the definition that states they have to be perfectly rational about every decision they make – even though there are perfectly rational reasons for not walking under ladders, as Angus has already pointed out.

    Can anyone tell me why atheists use faith to believe in Speciation?

    Do you have an example of an atheist who believes in speciation through faith alone? Because all the atheists I’ve ever come across accept it due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that demonstrates that it happens.

    Obviously no evidence since they will not provide it.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire … again.

    Has your God still not come through with evidence for the theory you refuse to put forward as an alternative to the ToE? Prayer just not doing it for you? Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God does not exist.

  116. on 05 Sep 2013 at 12:02 pm 116.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Great! Lets see the evidence!”

    Already gave evidence (well, ok, Freddie and DPK did…).

    ” GLAD to see you agree with me Dual Personality. ”

    Err…..what?

    “We don’t need to answer why others do certain thongs right DP?”
    *sarcasm on*
    Thong?

    You mean the womens underwear or the aussie footwear?
    *sarcasm off*

  117. on 05 Sep 2013 at 12:07 pm 117.Angus and Alexis said …

    Okay, rerun of A’s beliefs.

    Believes in deity of some sort.
    Has theory of how modern biodiversity came to be.
    Believes in prayer.
    Has grammar of a six year old.
    Demands evidence, but dismisses it.
    Believes that ToE equals Abiogenesis.
    Believes microevolution is true, but macroevolution is false.
    Has no effing clue about biology.
    Uses sock puppet army to divert actual important debates.
    Fetish of misspelling names, tulpa hate and evolution.

    Any more to add? (There obviously is, but i cant be bothered.)

  118. on 05 Sep 2013 at 12:08 pm 118.freddies_dead said …

    714.A said …

    “Already gave evidence (well, ok, Freddie and DPK did…).”

    Great! Lets see the evidence!

    You’ve already been presented with some, and pointed to other places where you could get a lot more.

    It was you who decided that you weren’t interested in examining the evidence. You weren’t prepared to “wade through it”. So your persistent cries to be shown the evidence ring decidedly hollow when we know that you’ve already determined that you won’t consider it.

    GLAD to see you agree with me Dual Personality. We don’t need to answer why others do certain thongs right DP?

    No-one said that you had to answer any questions, but your refusal to do so leaves us with very little choice but to conclude it’s most likely because you simply don’t have an answer.

  119. on 05 Sep 2013 at 12:42 pm 119.DPK said …

    It would appear that A is now equating prayer with avoiding walking under ladders and other superstitious nonsense that we all know is unfounded.
    Is that why you ask A? Because you think praying to some god, burying a statue, or hanging garlic on your door are all variations of the same idiocy?

  120. on 05 Sep 2013 at 1:19 pm 120.DPK said …

    This is good. A has taken a positive step. Let us see if we can categorize what is insane, and what is not when it comes to prayer and invoking supernatural powers.
    It would seem that dice A has mocked people who avoid walking under ladders, we can assume he thinks that practice is not rational. Since he brought that up in response to my question about burying plastic statues in your front yard, I must assume he also agrees that is also irrational. How about a baseball player crossing himself before stepping up to bat? Silly superstition, or effective prayer?
    How about lighting a candle in front of a statue in church? Does it work, or is it just silly nonsense?
    How about mindlessly repeating a number of predefined prayers in specific order and quantity while counting on a string of magical prayer beads? Is that an effective invocation of your gods powers, or is it a silly practice that has no effect?

    We will wait for ome answers, maybe A can demonstrate the true nature of evidence by exposing to us which forms of prayer are valid, and which are just stupid superstitions, and how exactly he knows the difference?

  121. on 05 Sep 2013 at 6:39 pm 121.DPK said …

    “maybe A can demonstrate the true nature of evidence by exposing to us which forms of prayer are valid, and which are just stupid superstitions, and how exactly he knows the difference?”

    Nothing yet? Hmm, that’s odd. I mean A finds the current mountain of evidence supporting evolution to be lacking, so I would assume that since he believes in prayer, but not in evolution, then the evidence for prayer must be truly mind unquestionable. Yet he won’t even tell us how he knows which forms of prayer are proven to work and which ones are just silly superstitious nonsense. Surely he must know, and he must have a criteria to be applied.
    How about burning incense and ringing bells and chanting? Are they effective means of getting god’s attention, or are they just silly rituals designed to impart a feeling of mystery and awe in the participants?

    Enlighten us A.

  122. on 05 Sep 2013 at 7:33 pm 122.A said …

    “accept it due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that demonstrates that it happens.”

    Great! Lets see it. I am ready to believe!

    Hey, can you atheists tell me what is up with those Buddhist atheists What’s up with the fat guys belly?

    lol!!

  123. on 05 Sep 2013 at 10:20 pm 123.DPK said …

    A… we are talking about prayer here, not Buddhists… try to focus man… really, your ADD needs medication.

    So, what’s up with those child molesting priests? Does god not answer the prayers of the children they molest because there wasn’t the appropriate statue burial performed? How is a believer in prayer supposed to know what is valid prayer that actually gets answered, and what is just crazy nonsense? Do those electric candles in the church where you put a quarter in and light a light bulb for 15 minutes work as well as lighting a real candle with a real match? Are they equivalent on the prayer effectiveness scale, or does one carry more weight than the other? Show us the evidence that you base your decision upon. Come on, you are the one lecturing on the nature of evidence… here is your chance to show us.

  124. on 05 Sep 2013 at 11:54 pm 124.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “Great! Lets see it. I am ready to believe!”

    As you can see here. A has no actual effort to learn but instead goes “lalala, cannot hear you” and dismissed anything we have sent.

    “Hey, can you atheists tell me what is up with those Buddhist atheists What’s up with the fat guys belly?”

    BAHAAHAHAHAHA…
    Budhist atheists?
    HA, is that like a quadriplegic sprinter?
    Maybe a carnivorous vegetarian?
    I have quite a few Buddhas in my house, but they are just for decorations.

  125. on 06 Sep 2013 at 3:06 am 125.DPK said …

    “I have quite a few Buddhas in my house, but they are just for decorations.”

    Unless something magic happens when you bury one upside down in your yard.. what good are they?

    Hey Ass… does a St.Christopher medal in your car really prevent accidents? What about a plastic dashboard Jesus? Work, or no work?

  126. on 06 Sep 2013 at 4:01 am 126.DPK said …

    I wonder why Stan / A / Crum won’t answer any direct questions about prayer?
    Could it be he doesn’t really believe in the power of prayer? Could it be he actually thinks burying a plastic statue upside down in your yard invokes magical powers? Could it be he is praying for guidance? Could it be he is trying to figure out how to divert attention away from the topic of prayer because he knows it it bullshit?

    Saw a great quote from the late Arthur C Clarke that aptly fits poor A’s situation.
    “A faith that cannot survive a collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.”
    Hey Ass.. If an atheist wishes for something and gets it, who answered his wish? Was it god?

  127. on 06 Sep 2013 at 8:14 am 127.Angus and Alexis said …

    DPK said.
    “Unless something magic happens when you bury one upside down in your yard.. what good are they?”

    Ehh, i like them, nuff said.

    I also have a skull from a Xenomorph, a sword and some shark jaws….

  128. on 06 Sep 2013 at 9:08 am 128.freddies_dead said …

    722.A said …

    “accept it due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that demonstrates that it happens.”

    Great! Lets see it. I am ready to believe!

    You’re gonna need another pair of pants.

    You’ve been given plenty of pointers as to where you can view the evidence, now it’s up to you. Have at it.

    Hey, can you atheists tell me what is up with those Buddhist atheists What’s up with the fat guys belly?

    lol!!

    Buddhism doesn’t have a God – the Gautama Buddha never claimed to be divine, although he is reputed to have denied being just a man too. The idea of Buddhism is to come to an understanding – an acceptance – of the way things are. To be “awakened”. The lack of a God makes Buddhism atheistic in nature – I guess that is why some atheists attempt to follow it’s teachings. If you wanted to know more about it you would be better served finding some Buddhists and asking them.

    Then you conflate Budai (a Chinese monk considered buddha or “awake”) with Gautama Buddha (the person whose teachings were the basis of modern Buddhism). They are not the same person.

    As to why some believe that rubbing his belly brings good fortune despite the lack of evidence to suggest it does anything. Well, you should be well placed to answer that. After all, as a Christian, you are taught to believe that God will answer your prayers despite all the studies showing that prayer is a total and utter waste of time. So why do you continue to believe in prayer despite all the evidence that shows it’s worthless?

  129. on 06 Sep 2013 at 12:02 pm 129.DPK said …

    “So why do you continue to believe in prayer despite all the evidence that shows it’s worthless?” Because, once he lost his wallet, and prayed to Jesus, and then the next day found it in his nightstand wher he had mistakenly put it the day before…. What more fucking proof do you need? Atheists never find their wallets when they are lost, just like they never get promotions at work, and always die when they get cancer.
    Ever notice hen a plane crashes, only atheists are killed?
    You so silly… You don’t understand the nature of evidence. Your belief that prayer doesn’t work is based completely on faith. Lol.

  130. on 06 Sep 2013 at 12:29 pm 130.A said …

    “Budhist atheists?
    HA, is that like a quadriplegic sprinter?
    Maybe a carnivorous vegetarian?”

    LOL!!!!, obviously Dual personality (DP) didn’t know Buddhist where atheist. That’s right DP, along with Jain, Taoist and some variants of Hinduism. You are learning and that is a good thing. So you should be able to answer for all theses groups since you are also atheist. Only fair right?

    So anyone going to provide just (1) piece of evidence which will survive the SM to confirm atheists believe not by faith but by proof?

    We will see……………..

  131. on 06 Sep 2013 at 2:03 pm 131.DPK said …

    “confirm atheists believe not by faith but by proof?”

    Atheists believe what? The only thing atheists believe in common is that your god is imaginary. Curiously, you also share that belief with respect to all the other gods people believe in besides yours.
    Now, the topic is prayer. Are you going to answer any questions about prayer, or just continue to desperately try to change the subject?
    How about hymns? Is singing hymns a more effective way to invoke god’s response than non-musical prayers?
    How about animal sacrifices and burnt offerings, as detailed in the bible? Since these instructions on how to slaughter and prepare animal sacrifices in a way that are pleasing to the lord come straight from god himself, surely they must be more effective than say, praying a rosary? Why don’t more believers sacrifice animals these days?

  132. on 06 Sep 2013 at 2:39 pm 132.A said …

    Still no evidence to provide, huh?

    Well can you tell us why atheists pray? That seems whack, right? Remember, this thread is about prayer

  133. on 06 Sep 2013 at 3:10 pm 133.freddies_dead said …

    730.A said …

    “Budhist atheists?
    HA, is that like a quadriplegic sprinter?
    Maybe a carnivorous vegetarian?”

    LOL!!!!, obviously Dual personality (DP) didn’t know Buddhist where atheist.

    Not all of them. There are many instances of local Gods being incorporated into Buddhism. No eternal, creator deities but Gods none the less.

    That’s right DP, along with Jain, Taoist and some variants of Hinduism. You are learning and that is a good thing.

    How would you know that learning is good as you refuse to learn anything about evolution?

    So you should be able to answer for all theses groups since you are also atheist. Only fair right?

    Not really. I wouldn’t ask a Muslim to answer for a Jew or a Christian, despite you all being theists. If you’re bothered about what Buddhism teaches then speak to a Buddhist. Simply picking an atheist at random and questioning them will, more often than not, get you nowhere.

    So anyone going to provide just (1) piece of evidence which will survive the SM to confirm atheists believe not by faith but by proof?

    Already done. Your insistence to the contrary is a lie.

    We will see……………..

    Correction. We have seen.

  134. on 06 Sep 2013 at 3:17 pm 134.DPK said …

    “Well can you tell us why atheists pray?”
    No, I can’t. I don’t pray, I’m an atheist, therefore your question is meaningless to me.
    Can YOU tell me why theists pray? Is there some actual reason to think it works? I’ve been asking and asking and asking, but you just avoid the question and try to keep talking about evolution… why is that? This isn’t the evolution thread, its the prayer thread.
    Muslim’s believe you must face a certain direction when you pray. Is that reasonable, or is that just a superstition? Do you face Mecca when you pray?
    Why do so many people get on their knees to pray? Does that make the prayer work better? Any evidence for that? I mean, in the bible, god tells us how to kill goats and lambs and birds and prepare their bodies and blood to be offered to him to please him. Did I miss the part where he said to kneel? I know there was something about not praying in public, but rather lock yourself in a closet to pray in private. Do you lock yourself in a closet to pray, A? Why not?

  135. on 06 Sep 2013 at 3:23 pm 135.freddies_dead said …

    732.A said …

    Still no evidence to provide, huh?

    An autobiographical statement, or was it directed at your God perhaps? He still not coming through with any evidence for you? Shame that, but don’t worry, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God does not exist.

    Well can you tell us why atheists pray? That seems whack, right? Remember, this thread is about prayer

    I have no idea why any atheist prays. It’s a pointless exercise IMO. However, the few examples I’ve read about seem to use it as a way to help themselves work things out. They seem to know full well that they’re praying to something they are merely imagining, but the act itself helps them get their thoughts straight.

    Now, if that was all Christians were doing when they prayed then there’s no real harm done, but it’s not, is it? Their book tells them that their prayers will be answered, when the evidence shows that they won’t, and there are many examples – failed faith healings for example – where theistic prayer turns out to actually be harmful. Maybe you could explain why you pray A? Why you do it when the evidence demonstrates you’re wasting your time?

  136. on 06 Sep 2013 at 4:29 pm 136.DPK said …

    “Maybe you could explain why you pray A? Why you do it when the evidence demonstrates you’re wasting your time?”

    Evidence? A has told us repeatedly that we do not understand the nature of evidence, so there MUST be something very convincing that he is simply keeping from us for some reason. Prayer should be able to meet the scientific method that “A” loves to yammer about, right?
    Let’s see, is it falsifiable? Sure, all we have to do is pray for something and see what happens, right? When we pray, our prayer should affect a response in the physical world that cannot be explained by random chance. If it doesn’t it is falsified. Check.
    We should be able to make predictions and test them to see if the hold true. We should see a statistically significant difference in things between people who pray and those who do not. Soldiers in battle who pray should suffer fewer injuries and fatalities than those who do not. Those who pray should have happier marriages, be more fulfilled in their jobs. They should be healthier, and have fewer instances of serious or fatal diseases. Their children should get accepted into better colleges, and more frequently. They should experience less poverty, depression, and should survive natural disasters in higher numbers than non-prayers.
    In fact, tracking these statistical trends should not only prove to us conclusively that prayer works, it should also show us conclusively WHICH god is real, which ones are fake, because if a particular god regularly intercedes in the physical world in response to prayers, there will be evidence in the physical world of that intervention.
    Oh wait… yeah, none of those things actually happen. Hmmm. Problem.

  137. on 06 Sep 2013 at 5:01 pm 137.DPK said …

    “A”… do you have ANYTHING to offer us in the way of evidence to suggest that praying to a god has any effect here in the physical world? Anything at all?
    Seriously, you have absolutely NOTHING to offer, yet you continue to try to steer the topic to evolution, a lost cause?
    Your faith seems to have had an unfortunate, unsurvivable encounter with the truth. Oh well, so much for that.

  138. on 06 Sep 2013 at 7:22 pm 138.A said …

    “They seem to know full well that they’re praying to something they are merely imagining”

    Sooooo, they knowingly talk to themselves since they KNOW there is no God?

    lol!!!

    FAS, say God is not real. At least thrust speak to a deity they believe is real! Atheists yammer on to the ceiling. We have good MDs to deal with their psychosis. Se about helping them Frederick.

    Now, what about the atheistic Buddhists. What up with those wack jobs?

    “A has told us repeatedly that we do not understand the nature of evidence”

    True and you continue to not provide your evidence.

  139. on 06 Sep 2013 at 7:52 pm 139.DPK said …

    “A”… do you have ANYTHING to offer us in the way of evidence to suggest that praying to a god has any effect here in the physical world? Anything at all?

    You keep asking for evidence…. Evidence that prayer does not work? That’s like asking for evidence that pigs don’t fly. The only evidence is there are no flying pigs.
    Now stop ignoring all the direct questions and show us what “real” evidence is in relation to prayer? Unless you agree prayer actually doesn’t work. Stop with the diversions about Buddhists… Your crazy is showing lol!
    What’s the problem?

  140. on 06 Sep 2013 at 8:56 pm 140.A said …

    Dippy,

    I am talking about prayer. Why do atheist pray if it doesn’t work? Why does the Buddhist sect of atheism pray if it doesn’t work? Seems bizzare, doncha think?

    Geez, answer one question!

  141. on 06 Sep 2013 at 10:20 pm 141.DPK said …

    Yes, I don’t understand why an atheist would pray. Unless you are talking about meditation, which is not the same thing. But, point ceded, it makes no sense for an atheist to pray to a god that doesn’t exist. I don’t. I don’t personally know any atheists who pray. Are these the same atheists you talked about before who also believe in god? hahaha… if that’s the case, both you and they have a comprehension problem.
    Anyway, I have answered your question. So enough with the dodges:
    Now, why do theists pray? And what criteria do you use to determine which forms of prayer work, and which are silly, idiotic nonsense? Do you think burying a statue head first in your front yard will actually invoke your god to intercede in a real estate sale? Do you think that facing Mecca when you pray causes god to give more credence to the request? Does saying a rosary in front of a statue of Mary work better than an animal sacrifice and blood offering. Show us the evidence you use to determine which of these things works and which don’t.

  142. on 06 Sep 2013 at 11:39 pm 142.A said …

    “Are these the same atheists you talked about before who also believe in god?”

    Yeah, what is up with being atheist and believing in god????? Lol!!! AND then praying when they don’t believe in god!! You got some messes up puppies there Dip. Lol!!!!

    Still no proof? tick tick tick….

    Oh, Theist are talking to God when they pray. DUH!

  143. on 07 Sep 2013 at 1:04 am 143.DPK said …

    “Yeah, what is up with being atheist and believing in god?????”

    Yeah, what’s up with that? Are you a complete idiot? (that’s a rhetorical question, we already know you are…) Because uh, if you believe in god you aren’t an atheist… by definition. If you eat meat your aren’t a vegitarian, and if you’ve had sex you aren’t a virgin. hahaha… you so STUPID ass… of course only you could come up with something so patently absurd.
    So, when theists pray, they think they are talking to god… duh yeah, we got that, dumbass. Now, why do they think that has any effect? Does burying a statue upside down in your front yard really invoke god’s magical powers? You understand the nature of evidence… so lets see some.

  144. on 07 Sep 2013 at 1:28 am 144.Angus and Alexis. said …

    Well to be fair, i assume an atheist can pray.

    Not to a deity of course, but more of a mantra to gain more concentration, perhaps gain more confidence.

    As prayer is defined as talking to a deity, spiritual entity or item of worship, an atheist can pray to a Tv…for what its worth…

    Time to poke holes at A’s grammar…
    “You got some messes up puppies there Dip. Lol!!!!”

    Messes up puppies? Heh..

    “Yeah, what is up with being atheist and believing in god?????”

    One question mark is enough.

    “doncha think?”

    Don’t you?* fixed.

    “FAS”

    Fags
    Are
    Sexy
    ?

    “At least thrust speak to a deity”

    I don’t think thrusting a deity will make it happy…

    *back to prayer*

    Already been said, but A, try to concentrate and just give some damned evidence.

  145. on 08 Sep 2013 at 11:54 pm 145.Angus and Alexis. said …

    Why has the debate stopped O.o

  146. on 09 Sep 2013 at 12:01 am 146.DPK said …

    There hasn’t been a “debate” here in a long time. There has only been Ass and the sock brigade desparetly ting to change the subject. There is no rational reason to think that prayer has any affect, and every one of them knows it. There is nothing to debate.

  147. on 09 Sep 2013 at 6:54 am 147.Angus and Alexis. said …

    True, but what i mean is…

    WHERE THE BLIMEY HELL IS THE LOCAL IDIOT? O.o

    Its like a desert without that guy…

  148. on 09 Sep 2013 at 10:03 am 148.freddies_dead said …

    738.A said …

    “They seem to know full well that they’re praying to something they are merely imagining”

    Sooooo, they knowingly talk to themselves since they KNOW there is no God?

    Yes, your point? Oh, wait, you only want to divert the conversation away from the pointlessness of Christian prayer…

    lol!!!

    I agree, praying, when you know God doesn’t exist is pretty damned stupid. So why do you do it?

    FAS, say God is not real.

    I say it even when it’s not for arguments sake – because it’s true.

    At least thrust speak to a deity they believe is real!

    Wait, what? So you’re suggesting that the atheists (who don’t believe in Gods) should just speak to Gods they believe are real instead of the ones they know don’t exist? This is more insane than atheists praying when they know God doesn’t exist. How can they be atheists if they believe in a God A? It defies the very definition of atheism.

    Atheists yammer on to the ceiling.

    While Christians yammer on to …? Evidence A. We’re still waiting for you to provide some that demonstrates the existence of your God and the efficacy of intercessory prayer. What’s the matter? God still not answering you? Have you figured out why yet? Don’t worry A, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God does not exist.

    We have good MDs to deal with their psychosis.

    So praying to “nothing” is a psychosis? Then why do you do it? Are you psychotic? Oh, that’s right, you don’t think you’re praying to nothing. You claim to have evidence that the God you pray to actually exists. So where’s this evidence A? You keep dodging this question. What’s the matter? Burden of proof too heavy for you? Don’t worry A, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God does not exist.

    Se about helping them Frederick.

    I’m trying to help A. I’ve pointed out time and again that there is no evidence for the God you claim to believe in, hoping that you recognise that your futile search for evidence can only mean one thing. That the God you claim to believe in does not exist. If He did you’d be able to find evidence to present to us, but we’re still waiting. How long A? How long will you carry on claiming to have evidence while refusing to present it? How long will you continue to delude yourself?

    Now, what about the atheistic Buddhists. What up with those wack jobs?

    No idea. Why don’t you ask them?

    “A has told us repeatedly that we do not understand the nature of evidence”

    True and you continue to not provide your evidence.

    Liar, liar. How many pants do you burn holes in each week with your incessant need to lie? I’m pretty sure there was a rule about that in the giant book of fairytales you call the Bible.

    I understand why you need to lie though, it’s because you have zero evidence to present in support of your own claims. Don’t worry A, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God does not exist.

  149. on 09 Sep 2013 at 7:27 pm 149.DPK said …

    “WHERE THE BLIMEY HELL IS THE LOCAL IDIOT? O.o”

    Oh please… count your blessings and hope (or pray, if you prefer) that he found somewhere else to peddle his bullshit. Trying to have an honest discussion with that man is like trying to talk politics with a hamster. Good riddance. Even the other theists deserted him.

  150. on 09 Sep 2013 at 10:37 pm 150.A said …

    “I’ve pointed out time and again that there is no evidence for the God”

    Frederick I laughed so hard at your post I nearly over a praying atheists! Lol!! Your attempts at reason are stupendously hilarious. Now I don’t know why atheists who believe in God call themselves atheists. Your ilk is a screwed up bunch. They claim there is no God too, so….

    I would like to believe you – and you claim there is no God. I really would, but you claim there is REAL evidence for macro evolution so – you are just not credible.

    Sorry Freddie!…..lol!!!

    What up wit dem atheistic Taoist Dippy?

  151. on 09 Sep 2013 at 11:55 pm 151.Angus and Alexis. said …

    DPK said.
    “Oh please… count your blessings and hope (or pray, if you prefer) that he found somewhere else to peddle his bullshit. Trying to have an honest discussion with that man is like trying to talk politics with a hamster. Good riddance. Even the other theists deserted him.”

    True, but there is at least its fun to destroy his arguments…

    A the local idiot said.
    “Your attempts at reason are stupendously hilarious.”

    I could say ditto back…

    “Now I don’t know why atheists who believe in God call themselves atheists.”

    Its because you made them up, the literal second you believe in god, you are no longer an atheist.

    “Your ilk is a screwed up bunch.”

    How so? Is it because we weren’t brainwashed like rats?

    “They claim there is no God too, so….”

    Who? Atheists?
    The “We believe in god atheists”?
    Obviously we don’t believe in god.
    The god believing atheists do not exist.

    “I would like to believe you – and you claim there is no God.”

    Bullshit, all previous hundreds, perhaps thousands of posts say otherwise.

    ” I really would, but you claim there is REAL evidence for macro evolution so – you are just not credible.”

    Claim?
    I think you mean “Has linked several sites, used the scientific method and shown several occurrences of speciesation and DNA mutation.”
    Its not our fault that you have your own theory of evolution and scientific method.

    “What up wit dem atheistic Taoist Dippy?”

    Why would you ask a bunch of random atheists that question? Ask them, not us.

    So, A, have you finished your apparent “better than evolution theory”? We would like to see it.

  152. on 10 Sep 2013 at 9:39 am 152.freddies_dead said …

    “I’ve pointed out time and again that there is no evidence for the God”

    Frederick I laughed so hard at your post I nearly over a praying atheists! Lol!!

    I know, it’s fucking hilarious that you’ve offered absolutely no evidence for your God, or for intercessory prayer. Anyone would think I was dead right when I point out that there isn’t any for you to present.

    You could easily demonstrate I was wrong of course – just present some evidence for your God? Some evidence that shows prayer actually works perhaps? What’s that? You’ve got none? Colour me unsurprised (that’s a vivid orange btw). I get it now, you’re laughing because it’s true and your only other option is crying. There, there.

    Your attempts at reason are stupendously hilarious.

    Which just shows you have no idea how reasoning works. It’s quite simple. When you can adduce absolutely no evidence for your God’s existence, there’s no reason why we should believe that that God exists. If you want to show that my reasoning is, in any way, incorrect you’d give us the evidence. Yet you continue to dodge and divert.

    Now I don’t know why atheists who believe in God call themselves atheists.

    Neither do I but what has that got to do with you demonstrating the existence of your God and the efficacy of intercessory prayer? Oh, that’s right, nothing. You’re just trying to divert the conversation away from your stunning lack of evidence. Gotcha.

    Your ilk is a screwed up bunch.

    Coming from a guy who’s ilk are responsible for the systematic rape and molestation of small children.

    They claim there is no God too, so….

    Because there isn’t. If there were you’d be able to present us with some evidence and your prayers would actually have some effect. You have no evidence and your prayers for some evidence are still failing. Don’t worry A, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God does not exist.

    I would like to believe you

    Liar…

    – and you claim there is no God.

    Because there isn’t one.

    I really would, but you claim there is REAL evidence for macro evolution so

    There is, and you’ve been told all about it so there’s absolutely no excuse for your ignorance. Instead you willfully refuse to examine that evidence and prefer to resort to lying about it’s existence.

    – you are just not credible.

    Coming from the guy who needs half a dozen sock-puppets just to try and back up his baseless assertions.

    Sorry Freddie!…..lol!!!

    Apology accepted. Does this mean you’re going to be honest in the future? Give us the evidence you claim exists? Demonstrate the efficacy of prayer? No? Why is that A? Why the constant dodges and diversions? Is it because you’re well aware that you have no evidence to present? Don’t worry A, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God does not exist.

    What up wit dem atheistic Taoist Dippy?

    Is DPK a Taoist? I certainly don’t recall him ever making that claim. If not then why don’t you find some atheistic Taoists and ask them how they reconcile their Taoism with their atheism? Oh, that’s right, it’s just another dodge. Lame.

  153. on 10 Sep 2013 at 12:23 pm 153.A said …

    “If you want to show that my reasoning is, in any way, incorrect”

    Already done. Wanna prove me wrong? Still waiting for evidence for Macro using the SM.

    The rest of you post got my boots dirty…..lol!!!

  154. on 10 Sep 2013 at 2:37 pm 154.freddies_dead said …

    753.A said …

    “If you want to show that my reasoning is, in any way, incorrect”

    Already done.

    Where? All you’ve done so far is demonstrate you’re entirely incapable of presenting evidence for your God’s existence. Until you manage to change that my reasoning stands.

    Wanna prove me wrong? Still waiting for evidence for Macro using the SM.

    Post 137. It’s still there. It’s still evidence for evolution found using the scientific method. That it doesn’t fit with your bizarro versions of both evolution and the scientific method is irrelevant.

    The rest of you post got my boots dirty…..lol!!!

    Is this supposed to mean something? Although, in your bizarro little world, I guess anything’s possible … except finding and presenting evidence for your God of course. We’re still waiting. Maybe you need to pray harder? Or you’re getting the magic words wrong? Perhaps you’re praying to wrong God? What’s wrong A? Why no evidence? Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because prayer is a total and utter waste of time because your God doesn’t exist.

  155. on 10 Sep 2013 at 4:58 pm 155.A said …

    “Post 137. It’s still there”

    Yep, it still is there and languishing in ineptness. Please, use your post and step by step show how it proves Micro evolution using SM.

    I’ll get the popcorn and a pen. This is exciting!!

  156. on 11 Sep 2013 at 11:59 am 156.freddies_dead said …

    755.A said …

    “Post 137. It’s still there”

    Yep, it still is there and languishing in ineptness.

    As usual you have no factual response so you dismiss without reason. Not a surprise given you’re an unreasoning person.

    Please, use your post and step by step show how it proves Micro evolution using SM.

    Hold on. You’ve gone back on microevolution being true now? Back in post 101 you stated that “Microevolution is proven by science.”. Why have you suddenly changed your stance on this?

    And why are you suggesting that my post at 137 was about proving microevolution was true? You asked for evidence for evolution found using the scientific method and I presented Tiktaalik, a lobe finned fish with tetrapod attributes that mark it out as a transitional form i.e. evidence for evolution. I also pointed out that it was found using the scientific method:
    1) A gap in the fossil record was noticed (observe).
    2) A hypothesis as to where a fossil to fill the gap could be found was formed (predict).
    3) An expedition to investigate the relevant rock formations was carried out (experiment/testing).

    So far you’ve failed to rebut any of that and have resorted to lying about the evidence being given. Now you’re changing the request – to something you’ve already admitted was true no less! You really are a dishonest idiot.

    I’ll get the popcorn and a pen. This is exciting!!

    It might be exciting for a dullard such as yourself, but the rest of us find only amusement in you contradicting yourself once again.

  157. on 11 Sep 2013 at 5:05 pm 157.A said …

    “Microevolution is proven by science.”. Why have you suddenly changed your stance on this?”

    Never have questioned or asked for proof of it. So what’s the point? Trying to use micro as proof of macro?

    I laughed so hard at your so called SM.

    Tiktaalik is a fish. Now prove it evolved into another species. Observed? Predict? Test?

    can you? Will you?

    Exploring a rock formation is a test of speciation? Lol!!!!

    Tetrapods existed BEFORE your fish, wrong again Freddie!

    So if a gap is “observed” in the creation account for intelligence can we add a creator? It is observed!!! lol!!!!

  158. on 12 Sep 2013 at 11:21 am 158.Angus and Alexis. said …

    “Never have questioned or asked for proof of it. So what’s the point? Trying to use micro as proof of macro?”

    You went from “micro is true” to “Prove micro using the SM”, why would you ask for something that is already proven?

    “Tiktaalik is a fish. Now prove it evolved into another species. Observed? Predict? Test?”

    Its a fish with tetrapod characteristics.

    Care to “test” nuclear fusion? I know you cant, does that mean that the sun is fake?

    “Exploring a rock formation is a test of speciation? Lol!!!!”

    Exploring composition, age, etc. Indirectly can, yes.

    “Tetrapods existed BEFORE your fish, wrong again Freddie!”

    This is false.
    Tiktaalik is commonly accepted, and aged to be the link between tetrapods and fish.
    It lacks the tetrapod characteristics that makes a tetrapod, but lacks the characteristics that makes a fish.

    “So if a gap is “observed” in the creation account for intelligence can we add a creator?”

    Presumably, yes.
    Do you happen to have such information?
    No?
    I thought not.

  159. on 12 Sep 2013 at 4:34 pm 159.freddies_dead said …

    757.A said …

    “Microevolution is proven by science.”. Why have you suddenly changed your stance on this?”

    Never have questioned or asked for proof of it.

    Except when you asked me to prove microevolution of course. That you asked me to do it using something that isn’t specific to microevolution just made it more bizarre.

    So what’s the point? Trying to use micro as proof of macro?

    This makes very little sense. Tiktaalik is an example of a transitional form, which makes it a piece of evidence for evolution. I wasn’t using it to prove either micro or macro. I was using it as an example of evidence for evolution found using the scientific method – which is what you asked for.

    I laughed so hard at your so called SM.

    I’m not surprised that you find the actual scientific methods of observation, prediction and testing amusing. Anything that allows people to gain knowledge for themselves must be funny to someone who imagines that they can just pray for knowledge. Is this what you did A? Prayed to God to tell you about evolution? Because your “knowledge” of evolution and the scientific method sucks. You should ask your God for that prayer back. While you’re at it you could pray for some evidence that shows your God exists and answers prayers.

    Tiktaalik is a fish.

    A lobe finned one, yes.

    Now prove it evolved into another species.

    Tiktaalik is a genus not a species. Following on from Tiktaalik you’ll find primitive tetrapods such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega.

    Observed? Predict? Test?

    It’s what scientists do.

    can you? Will you?

    Me? I’m not a scientist but sure, I could give it a go. What about you A? Got anything similar for your God? A verifiable observation of God perhaps? A specific prediction on the return of Jesus maybe? A way to test the efficacy of prayer? Oh, wait. That’s already been done and the results were pretty bad for you, weren’t they i.e. they showed that it doesn’t work.

    Exploring a rock formation is a test of speciation? Lol!!!!

    Nope it’s a test of a prediction i.e. that you’ll find an animal that is a transitional form – and it worked.

    If I was going to test speciation I’d go with an organism that has very short generational timespans, something like flies or bacteria. Then see what happens when you change their environment. Hold on, that sounds familiar. Oh, yes, that’s because scientists have already done it and observed speciation happening. So much for your claim that it doesn’t.

    Tetrapods existed BEFORE your fish, wrong again Freddie!

    As I have already pointed out on this thread. The Polish find was fossilised tracks, not an actual fossil. They suggest that tetrapod characteristics may have evolved sooner elsewhere on the planet, but they don’t actually say anything about Tiktaalik.

    The fact that an earlier animal may have exhibited tetrapod characteristics in no way changes the fact that Tiktaalik was a lobe-finned fish which did have tetrapod characteristics. It has no bearing on Tiktaalik’s status as a transitional form. The only way you could do that is either show it’s not a lobe-finned fish, or that it doesn’t exhibit tetrapod characteristics. Over to you A. You could always pray for some help with this.

    The reason you don’t get this is because you don’t understand that evolution is a branching tree NOT a ladder.

    So if a gap is “observed” in the creation account for intelligence can we add a creator? It is observed!!! lol!!!!

    Just what is the creation account for intelligence? And where is your evidence to support this account? Is there prayer involved? Cause, you know, that’s what this thread is supposed to be about.

  160. on 13 Sep 2013 at 1:48 am 160.A said …

    “I was using it as an example of evidence for evolution found using the scientific method – which is what you asked for.”

    Then prove it and stop the games. Pointing at a fossil with a lob does NOT prove speciation, macroevolution or whatever word you would like to use. It’s a fish, it is not transitional unless you can prove it is more than a fish.

    What have we observed? A fossil in the present of a fish.

    What does it prove? A fish existed that died and became fossilized.

    Was this what you wanted to prove? Please tell me you have more.

    You know my cat and dog both have four legs, eyes, nose and ears. Could they really be the same species? Which one is evolving into the other? lol!!!

  161. on 13 Sep 2013 at 1:49 am 161.A said …

    ‘Hold on, that sounds familiar. Oh, yes, that’s because scientists have already done it and observed speciation happening. So much for your claim that it doesn’t.”

    Great!! Lets see it! I’ll get the popcorn back out. Sounds promising…..

  162. on 13 Sep 2013 at 7:13 am 162.Angus and Alexis. said …

    “Great!! Lets see it! I’ll get the popcorn back out. Sounds promising…..”

    Google mate…use its power…

    “What have we observed? A fossil in the present of a fish.”

    We observed a link between tetrapods and fish.

    “What does it prove? A fish existed that died and became fossilized.”

    It proves there is some action that led from fish to tetrapod.

    “Was this what you wanted to prove?”

    Yes.

    “You know my cat and dog both have four legs, eyes, nose and ears. Could they really be the same species?”

    No, they are both mammals, you should know that.

    “Then prove it and stop the games.”

    Prove that nuclear fusion exists, show me that it can happen in labs.
    You cant, but it is fact that the sun uses fusion.

  163. on 13 Sep 2013 at 9:34 am 163.freddies_dead said …

    760.A said …

    “I was using it as an example of evidence for evolution found using the scientific method – which is what you asked for.”

    Then prove it and stop the games.

    I’m not playing games. I gave you what you asked for and you dismissed it without giving any real reasons. By your own admission you’re not interested in “wading through” the evidence. That’s not my problem.

    Pointing at a fossil with a lob does NOT prove speciation, macroevolution or whatever word you would like to use.

    I never claimed that it did. You asked for evidence of evolution found using the scientific method and that’s exactly what I gave you. You want specific evidence of speciation (or macroevolution as you like to call it) then there are plenty of places you could view the evidence i.e. at TalkOrigins 29+ evidence for macroevolution. However, by your own admission, you’re not interested in “wading through” the evidence. Again, that’s not my problem but it sure makes you look an idiot.

    It’s a fish, it is not transitional unless you can prove it is more than a fish.

    It’s already been done A. Scientists have described the animal in detail and shown it to have tetrapod characteristics which single it out as a transitional form. It’s not my fault (or my problem) that you don’t like this. If you’ve got a beef with their conclusions go tell them. I’m sure they’ll be overjoyed by your your refusal to “wade through” the evidence. That refusal to actually educate yourself in a manner that would lead to informed observations is just so impressive.

    What have we observed? A fossil in the present of a fish.

    A fossil that is a lobe finned fish which also displays tetrapod characteristics.

    What does it prove?

    It’s evidence that tetrapods most likely descended from lobe finned fish.

    A fish existed that died and became fossilized.

    So it did. That you don’t understand how this represents evidence in favour of evolution is not my problem. Maybe you should take the time to start “wading through” the evidence otherwise you’re always going to look like a fool when you dismiss it without reason.

    Was this what you wanted to prove?

    I wasn’t out to prove anything. You asked for evidence for evolution found using the scientific method and that’s exactly what I gave you. That you disagree is irrelevant as you’ve already admitted you can’t be bothered to “wade through” the evidence in order to evaluate it properly.

    Please tell me you have more.

    We have pointed you to plenty, but you’ve already admitted you can’t be bothered to “wade through” the evidence in order to evaluate it properly. That isn’t our problem.

    You know my cat and dog both have four legs, eyes, nose and ears. Could they really be the same species? Which one is evolving into the other? lol!!!

    Which just demonstrates your complete ignorance of taxonomy. How animals are placed in families with distinct genus’ and each of those separated into species. Dogs and cats aren’t even in the same family let alone be possible members of the same species, but hey!, you’re not interested in “wading through” the evidence so we can’t expect you to make any informed comments.

    Maybe you could pray for some help with your ignorance? While you’re at it you could ask for evidence that your God exists and that prayer works.

  164. on 13 Sep 2013 at 9:36 am 164.freddies_dead said …

    761.A said …

    ‘Hold on, that sounds familiar. Oh, yes, that’s because scientists have already done it and observed speciation happening. So much for your claim that it doesn’t.”

    Great!! Lets see it! I’ll get the popcorn back out. Sounds promising…..

    You’re welcome to eat your popcorn while “wading through” the 29+ evidences for macroevolution over at TalkOrigins.

  165. on 13 Sep 2013 at 9:41 am 165.freddies_dead said …

    And, as we know you can’t be bothered to “wade through” the evidence for evolution, you can instead answer the questions about your own theory:

    So if a gap is “observed” in the creation account for intelligence can we add a creator? It is observed!!! lol!!!!

    Come on A, just what is the creation account for intelligence? And where is your evidence to support this account?

  166. on 13 Sep 2013 at 1:56 pm 166.A said …

    “I never claimed that it did. You asked for evidence of evolution found using the scientific method and that’s exactly what I gave you.”

    How is a fossil of a fish found in the ground in the present EVIDENCE of speciation? You are observing a fossil, not a process. Are you really this challenged? Adding pretty drawings does not enhance the case.

    “You’re welcome to eat your popcorn while “wading through” the 29+ evidences for macroevolution over at TalkOrigins.”

    Seen them. I was a believer in speciation for 30 years. So which of the 29 do you find the most compelling?

    “It’s evidence that tetrapods most likely”

    Or maybe it was just a fish? And there you have it, not proof, a most likely!. Why are you looking for the transitional after the transition supposedly had occurred- that doesn’t make any sense?? My aunt is most likely my uncle without the package. lol!!

    Its just another hoax that the week minded cling to for hope. You have just the latest in a long line of failures.

    Let us know when you have actual evidence that really follows the Scientific Method.

  167. on 13 Sep 2013 at 3:48 pm 167.freddies_dead said …

    766.A said …

    “I never claimed that it did. You asked for evidence of evolution found using the scientific method and that’s exactly what I gave you.”

    How is a fossil of a fish found in the ground in the present EVIDENCE of speciation?

    Who claimed that it was? Not I, because that’s not what you asked for originally. You’re the one who has changed your request after the original question was answered and you had no response to it. I’ve also pointed you to TalkOrigins 20+ evidences for macroevolution to answer the new question. Go and check them out if you want evidence of speciation that has been observed. Oh wait, that’s right, you can’t bothered to “wade through” the evidence. Which kind of begs the question as to why you keep asking for it. Well, we know why that is, it’s because you’re desperate to try and keep the conversation away from you providing evidence for your God and the efficacy of intercessory prayer. It’s not working btw. I’m quite happy to show your ignorance of evolution, the scientific method and evidence whilst continuing to ask you for your evidence of God’s existence – something you’ve yet to provide.

    You are observing a fossil, not a process. Are you really this challenged? Adding pretty drawings does not enhance the case.

    The only challenged one here is you. You have no way of reviewing the evidence provided as you’ve already admitted you can’t be bothered to “wade through” it all. You have no idea what pieces of evidence support which parts of the theory of evolution, which makes it all the more amusing when you try to attack the evidence we’ve presented to you.

    “You’re welcome to eat your popcorn while “wading through” the 29+ evidences for macroevolution over at TalkOrigins.”

    Seen them. I was a believer in speciation for 30 years. So which of the 29 do you find the most compelling?

    What are you on about “most compelling”? They’re all observed instances of speciation – you know, the thing you claim can’t happen in evolution (even though you’ll never explain why) – there isn’t anything quite so compelling as facts.

    Your claim that speciation isn’t possible is demonstrably wrong. Which bit of that are you having trouble with? Unless, of course, you have some evidence to suggest that those instances aren’t of speciation, in which case you’re welcome to present it – just like you’re welcome to present evidence for your God or the efficacy of prayer. Any time now A, it’s been over 2 months and you’ve still presented fuck all, anyone would think you had nothing. Don’t worry, we know why.

    “It’s evidence that tetrapods most likely”

    Or maybe it was just a fish?

    It was a fish with tetrapod characteristics. Do you dispute this? If so lets see your explanation of the tetrapod characteristics that the fossil displays.

    And there you have it, not proof, a most likely!.

    You didn’t ask for proof of speciation. You asked for evidence of evolution found using the scientific method and that’s exactly what I gave you. You have now changed the request and, despite having that request answered too, you’re back to claiming you weren’t given what you asked for. You’re a liar and a very bad one at that.

    Why are you looking for the transitional after the transition supposedly had occurred- that doesn’t make any sense??

    Of course it doesn’t make sense, you said it.

    My aunt is most likely my uncle without the package. lol!!

    More nonsense from the lazy, lying theist. Do you think this proves something? Other than that you’re an idiot that is.

    Its just another hoax that the week minded cling to for hope.

    Tiktaalik is a hoax now? You have proof no doubt? So present it. I predict A will ignore the request because he has no evidence at all. No evidence that Tiktaalik is a hoax nor for his own replacement theory that he refuses to present. Just like he has no evidence for the existence of his God or the efficacy of intercessory prayer. Over 2 months and still nothing. Don’t worry, we know why.

    You have just the latest in a long line of failures.

    And just how has Tiktaalik failed A? Go on, enlighten us with your stunning knowledge of paleobiology and comparative anatomy. Come on, you keep making these claims as if you had evidence to back up your assertions. Why don’t you simply present your evidence? Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because you don’t have any evidence. You don’t understand evolution, the scientific method or the nature of evidence either.

    Let us know when you have actual evidence that really follows the Scientific Method.

    Let us know when you’ve actually gotten yourself a clue about the nature of evidence and the scientific method A. Cause so far you’ve only managed to demonstrate your willful ignorance on all of these topics.

  168. on 13 Sep 2013 at 4:22 pm 168.Jemima Boucher said …

    I wonder if it’s true that atheism has become so obsessive for many, that it’s now functioning as a religion? Just came across this:

    The Scandinavian Skeptic (why Atheism Is a Belief System)
    http://bit.ly/is_atheism_a_belief

  169. on 13 Sep 2013 at 4:44 pm 169.A said …

    “Who claimed that it was? Not I”

    OK Freedie, you failed. We will open the question to the field. Everyone knows Microevolution takes place since it is verifiable by the SM. I don’t need a fish fossil to prove the point. Now, lets see who can do the same for Macroevolution.

    “I wonder if it’s true that atheism has become so obsessive for many, that it’s now functioning as a religion?”

    Absolutely! They have dogma, churches and their high priests. All the characteristics are present.

  170. on 13 Sep 2013 at 9:02 pm 170.A said …

    “And just how has And just how has Tiktaalik failed A? Go on, enlighten us with your stunning knowledge of paleobiology and comparative anatomy failed A? Go on, enlighten us with your stunning knowledge of paleobiology and comparative anatomy”

    Biology and anatomy from a fossil? ROTFL!!!
    Wow! You really are a sucker. Tiktaalik requires you to prove your claims. I need do nothing since it is already going the way of Ada. You are welcome to try again.

    Good Luck.

  171. on 13 Sep 2013 at 10:23 pm 171.michelle said …

    Over 700 posts and we still can’t prove whether or not God exists. Trust me folks, proving his existence is not that hard if you sincerely and I mean SINCERELY!!!!!!! wanted to find out.

  172. on 14 Sep 2013 at 12:33 am 172.DPK said …

    “proving his existence is not that hard if you sincerely and I mean SINCERELY!!!!!!! wanted to find out.”

    I do…. show me.
    D

  173. on 14 Sep 2013 at 12:37 am 173.DPK said …

    “Absolutely! They have dogma, churches and their high priests. All the characteristics are present.”

    Really?
    re·li·gion
    ri?lij?n/
    noun
    noun: religion

    1.
    the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

    whoops… lying again Ass? We know, you just can’t control yourself… hahahaha… sure go ahead and think everyone must be just like you… whatever.
    Excuse me I have to go to atheist church now and pray to a god I don’t believe exists because my atheist priest told me I had to.
    Anyone new… now you know why the “A” in his name stands for asshole.

  174. on 14 Sep 2013 at 1:33 am 174.Angus and Alexis. said …

    A said…
    “Biology and anatomy from a fossil? ROTFL!!!”

    I guess that means we think T-rex didn’t eat meat, that dinosaurs were not big, and that velociraptors never had feathers. 9_9

  175. on 14 Sep 2013 at 2:38 am 175.Anonymous said …

    littlest “a”
    Still at it, eh?

    The conversation that you’re having about proving Evolutionary Theory was finished just after 1850. The common thinking of the day was fixed species. Unfortunately, strange fossils were showing up – species that were unknown. Questions began to be asked and then along came Darwin.

    Today the various branches of scientific inquiry have confirmed the theory beyond doubt (Yeah, we all know you claim it’s a big cover up). The only people on our planet who are upset/irked with the theory seem to be certain Americans. Too much Southern inbreeding, too much christianity, too many hillbillies?

    It’s OK “a”, your little droning and whining won’t change the theory. Why not present an alternative? Oh, you’ve got NOTHING!! Too bad..lol!!

  176. on 14 Sep 2013 at 7:02 am 176.Angus and Alexis. said …

    Well, with “A” being a theist, by default isn’t “God did it” the theory?

  177. on 14 Sep 2013 at 1:51 pm 177.A said …

    “It’s OK “a””

    I know. So can u provide evidence that macro evolution is a fact? Please tell me you have more than a fish.

    Looking forward to being shown I am wrong. Lol!!!

    You want an alternative which shows to KNOW macro is not a fact, right mouse? Yeah, lol!!!

  178. on 14 Sep 2013 at 3:23 pm 178.DPK said …

    There is much, much more than a fish, but since you refuse to “wade through it” you are condemned to a life of willful ignorance. That’s your problem, not ours.
    Now, try again… What has this got to do with prayer or the existence of your god? Oh yeah, nothing at all. It’s just your way of trying sadly to divert attention away from your complete and utter failure to make a case for either.
    I notice Michelle also high tailed it out of here after offering to prove the existence of god as well. Sound bites and platitudes… Thats all you have?

  179. on 14 Sep 2013 at 5:02 pm 179.A said …

    “There is much, much more than a fish”

    True, not even a fish, just a fossil with unsubstantiated claims by Fred. More than that it is a repeat of Ada, a colossal failure.

    Liking how you guys are careful not to provide specifics. Really scared of saying too much. ;).

  180. on 14 Sep 2013 at 8:02 pm 180.DPK said …

    I’ve been praying to my atheist god that I don’t believe in to grant you the ability to educate yourself on the specifics of the most widely accepted and supported scientific theory in existence so that you don’t continue to wallow in willful ignorance, but just like praying to your god, it doesn’t seem to have had any effect.
    I must remember to ask my atheist priest, the next time I’m in my atheist church, why the atheist god doesn’t answer my prayers. I’m sure he will have some atheist dogma to spout off.

  181. on 15 Sep 2013 at 1:29 am 181.alex said …

    “Over 700 posts and we still can’t prove whether or not God exists. Trust me folks, proving his existence is not that hard if you sincerely and I mean SINCERELY!!!!!!!”

    my retarded nephew is more sincere than you theist motherfuckers will ever be and guess what? my retarded nephew doesn’t believe in your god

    no matter what that fuckhead martin/asshole/40yeardipshit says, atheists don’t believe in your bullshit god, period, end of story. all the blabbermouth ever does is point out irrelevant shit, but still no proof on prayer.

    pray to your foreskin god and i’ll pray to the volcano god and what do you think will happen?

    assholes, you know who you are. lol that, motherfucker.

  182. on 15 Sep 2013 at 3:03 am 182.Anonymous said …

    tiniest “a”
    “You want an alternative which shows to KNOW macro is not a fact, right mouse? ”

    Nope. I have enough to see that Darwin was right. But I would love to see a serious challenge to the theory; it’s what drives understanding. So far your simpleton approach is coming up very flaccid.

    We are both working from the same evidence, right? Early lifeforms were single celled and simple. Early multi-cellular life was becoming progressively more complex. Are you seeing a pattern yet? LOL!!

  183. on 15 Sep 2013 at 4:23 am 183.michelle said …

    Alex,

    you know that’s not entirely what my words meant. Think about this carefully – If God was real, would you really like to find out?

  184. on 15 Sep 2013 at 8:13 am 184.Angus and Alexis. said …

    “If God was real, would you really like to find out?”

    Yes, i would like to know if a genocidal maniac with magic powers made everything….so i could kill the asshole for what he has done.

    But deluding myself, and using nothing more than faith is hilariously stupid to do so.

  185. on 15 Sep 2013 at 10:31 am 185.alex said …

    “you know that’s not entirely what my words meant. Think about this carefully – If God was real, would you really like to find out?”

    take every theist statement uttered here and substitute Vulcan for God and then ask yourself the same question, what would your answer be?

    then follow thru with the other irrelevant diversionary crap like toe, ufos, gravity, etc, would you conclude that Vulcan is the Truth?

    atheists don’t believe in your Bullshit god, period. i don’t discount the possibility of a god, but it doesn’t matter. unless you can prove prayer/god/hell/etc, it’s all bullshit.

    still stuck on that morality shit? please publish your test and i’ll take it. the truth test? again publish your standard and i’ll apply it to any fucking subject matter. but, i know you won’t…

  186. on 15 Sep 2013 at 12:26 pm 186.DPK said …

    “you know that’s not entirely what my words meant. Think about this carefully – If God was real, would you really like to find out?”

    Yes, I most certainly would. If god was real, that would represent truth, and I would very much like to know. Now show me.

  187. on 15 Sep 2013 at 12:57 pm 187.Anonymous said …

    michelle: “If God was real, would you really like to find out?”

    Absolutely. Maybe there is a committee of gods. Judging by how things have progressed on our tiny planet and knowing how groups with power sometimes function, you never know.

    Now, michelle, are you ready to change your mindset if that god is Allah and he prefers the Muslim way of thinking? You’d better!!

  188. on 15 Sep 2013 at 1:30 pm 188.alex said …

    “…are you ready to change your mindset if that god is Allah…”

    some will rationalize and say the xtian god and the muslim god is one and the same. more apologetic bullcrap, an offshoot of the bullshit pascal’s bet. cover all the fucking bases to ensure the tasty virgens. pope says it’s cool, wink, wink.

    theists don’t get it. there’s nothing about religion that’s even remotely attractive to atheists. everlasting life? bullshit. hell? bullshit? morals? same as yours. what else ya got?

    my motives? equality for women and gays. freedom to practice other religions or lack thereof. fight any and all aspects of the religious bullshittery including, but not limited to creationism, ignorance, and the preferential treatment accorded.

  189. on 15 Sep 2013 at 2:46 pm 189.DPK said …

    I suspect that Michelle will offer nothing more than the typical theist doublespeak… “all you need to believe is to believe”. But since she said “proving” gods existence is not hard once you decide you really want to “know”… I will keep an open mind and await her to reveal to us what no other theist has been able to do.
    Typically they always resort to either you must have faith to believe… meaning, yeah, once you ignore any rational doubts and the complete lack of evidence to the contrary and decide to believe anyway, the believing part becomes much easier. duh.

  190. on 15 Sep 2013 at 5:24 pm 190.michelle said …

    Angus and Alexis,
    may God forgive you because you know not what you say.

  191. on 15 Sep 2013 at 5:32 pm 191.michelle said …

    Anonymous,

    If I didn’t know what I now know, it might have been easier for me to be accept something else. i consider myself privileged to have received the revelations that I have received.

  192. on 15 Sep 2013 at 5:45 pm 192.michelle said …

    Alex,

    I truly hope that you find peace and more importantly, find God before it’s too late.

  193. on 15 Sep 2013 at 6:11 pm 193.Anonymous said …

    Over 700 posts and we still can’t prove whether or not God exists. Trust me folks, proving his existence is not that hard if you sincerely and I mean SINCERELY!!!!!!! wanted to find out.

    Michelle, it seems you keep avoiding the question on how we can prove the existence of this god of yours.

    So, let’s ask the question another way.

    What proof do you have of this god’s existence?

  194. on 15 Sep 2013 at 6:59 pm 194.A said …

    “Typically they always resort to either you must have faith to believe… meaning, yeah, once you ignore any rational doubts and the complete lack of evidence to the contrary”

    Oh, like Macroevolution? Well since you can use faith why not theists? Hmmm? Once we remove irrational beliefs like in the atheists world were life violated the law of biogenesis. lol!!!

  195. on 15 Sep 2013 at 8:09 pm 195.alex said …

    “Macroevolution”
    “biogenesis”

    wrong again as usual, you dumb motherfucker. what part of the “a” in atheist confuses you? a theist is a dumbshit that believes in god. the atheist is the opposite, you shitfuck. fuck you and your diversions. where is your god, you asshole? saving trailer park motherfuckers? helping football players score?

  196. on 15 Sep 2013 at 8:15 pm 196.alex said …

    “I truly hope that you find peace and more importantly, find God before it’s too late.”

    this is the kind of shit that provokes atheists like me. read post 790. i’m striving for religious equality, but you don’t even know what that means, do you? you’re so blinded with your righteousness that you don’t even give a fuck about anybody else.

    your god offers nothing but bullshit heaven and eternal life. you expect people to swallow that shit? do you really have this compelling need to pontificate? on a atheist site, no less?

    a/martin/asstro/40yeardipshit, in case you missed my last post, go fuck yourself.

  197. on 15 Sep 2013 at 11:38 pm 197.Anonymous said …

    “I truly hope that you find peace and more importantly, find God before it’s too late.”

    Michelle, first you’ve yet to tell us what this method for finding god is. You said it was “not hard” so it should be easy for you tell us. Why won’t you?

    Second, when does it become too late? Be specific please.

    Third, too late for what? What happens when it becomes too late?

    Finally, why should we believe you? How do you know these things?

  198. on 16 Sep 2013 at 12:36 am 198.michelle said …

    Alex,

    On the contrary, I do care about you, you have no idea. And I never intend to provoke you in any way so I apologize if I did.

  199. on 16 Sep 2013 at 1:08 am 199.A said …

    “On the contrary, I do care about you, you have no idea. And I never intend to provoke you in any way so I apologize if I did.

    Michelle,

    Just the fact you exist provokes alex. He is a very bitter and angry young man. He is angry at the world for his failures and comes to the blog to take his frustration out on every theist he can find. Pity him, use him as a warning for others but don’t engage him in conversation. Sadly things always end badly for his ilk. Quite a pity.

  200. on 16 Sep 2013 at 1:09 am 200.alex said …

    “…I do care about you, you have no idea.”

    again, more righteous shit. instead of caring about me, try caring about your gay friends/relatives by opposing idiotic anti-gay laws? care about your daughter’s future with the way they are supposed to be treated according to the bible? got any muslim or hindu friends? look up secularism and do it.

    wanna care about me? try practicing your religion in private. it’s common fucking courtesy. if even one person is offended by your constant throat jamming religion, shouldn’t you stop? it is not your right to candidly wave that “god bless you” shit. it’s offensive. exactly the same shit as “allah loves you”.

    puleeze, enough of the laughable spiritual concern.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply