Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: garebear on May 03, 2012, 07:04:51 AM



Title: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 03, 2012, 07:04:51 AM
Hey there.

I know there are a lot of atheists here on Getbig, so I thought it would be cool to start a thread.

Post any quotes, pics or vids that appeal to you.

I'm always interested.

Here's one to kick us off.

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


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 03, 2012, 07:14:12 AM
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.  - Albert Einstein


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 03, 2012, 07:16:16 AM
Now let it be written in history and on Mr. Lincoln's tombstone: "He died an unbeliever."

William H. Herndon, Abraham Lincoln's law partner in Springfield since 1844, Abraham Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life, 1896. Quoted in Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby, 2004.

A must read, BTW, for any atheist out there.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 03, 2012, 10:00:21 AM
Why are so many atheists so insecure?

April 27, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Atheist group sues Rochester Hills country club over canceled speech
By Robert Snell
The Detroit News

Detroit— A Rochester Hills country club that canceled an appearance last fall by an internationally known atheist was sued in federal court Friday.

The Center for Inquiry-Michigan, an organization dedicated to secularism and science, sued Wyndgate Country Club for allegedly denying use of its facilities to the public based upon religious beliefs.

The center wants unspecified damages and to block the country club from discriminating against others for religious reasons, according to the lawsuit.

A club official could not be reached for comment immediately Friday.

The lawsuit stems from the country club canceling an appearance by internationally known atheist and author Richard Dawkins in October.

Dawkins was scheduled to speak at the country club Oct. 12 during an event sponsored by the Center for Inquiry-Michigan.

Dawkins' local supporters said the appearance was canceled after the country club's owner saw an Oct. 5 interview with Dawkins on "The O'Reilly Factor." During the interview, Dawkins discussed his new book, "The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True."

The event's cancellation prompted supports to plan a protest against the country club.

A country club employee said the appearance was scrapped because "the owner (of the Wyndgate) does not wish to associate with certain individuals and philosophies," according to the lawsuit.

The club's owner, Larry Winget, is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
 
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120427/METRO02/204270403/1361/Atheist-group-sues-Rochester-Hills-country-club-over-canceled-speech


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 03, 2012, 10:11:20 AM
Why are some atheists so paranoid? 

Texas Movie Theater Refuses to Run Atheist Ad; Lawsuit to Follow?
By Michael Gryboski , Christian Post Reporter
May 3, 2012|7:02 am

A Texas movie theater has refused to run an ad by a local atheist organization, prompting some to consider a lawsuit against the business.
Angelika Film Center of Plano initially agreed to run an ad by Dallas-Fort Worth Coalition of Reason, but on the day before it was scheduled to run, the movie theater's leaders changed their mind.

Zachary Moore, coordinator of the DFWCR, told The Christian Post that his organization first attempted to advertise with another theater, the Movie Tavern in Arlington.

"The Movie Tavern has claimed that they have a policy against religious advertising, but such a policy has not been provided to us," said Moore.

"Following the cancellation of our contract with the Movie Tavern, we sought out a similar contract with the Angelika and was successful."

Angelika Film Center of Plano, Texas did not return a request for comments by press time.

Angelika Theater representatives reportedly told the atheist group that it won't run the ad due to the theater's position that no religious ads be allowed at the business. Moore, however, disputes Angelika's reasoning.

"Angelika has not made any such policy available to us, nor was this mentioned during our contract negotiation," said Moore.

"The Angelika has even refused to provide us with a written notice of our contract cancellation. As with the Movie Tavern, we have received reports of regular religious advertising at the Angelika."

The incident has prompted some, including the American Humanist Association, to threaten a lawsuit against Angelika under the premise that the theater violated DFWCR's rights by not airing its ad.

Stewart Thomas, a Dallas area attorney interviewed by CBS Dallas-Fort Worth, considered the potential case to be "very interesting" but expressed doubt that DFWCR had a good legal argument.

"t seems to me the public accommodation is to attend the theater and watch the movie, everyone has the right to watch the movie. I'm not sure the theater has to sell to anyone that wants to buy advertising," said Thomas.

DFWCR had originally planned to have the movie ad run during Good Friday and Easter. The organization's setbacks have been attributed by some to "Christian activists" in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-movie-theater-refuses-to-run-atheist-ad-lawsuit-to-follow-74280/


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 03, 2012, 10:14:40 AM
Why are some atheists so insensitive?

American Atheists Sue Over World Trade Center Cross
July 27, 2011
An atheist group sued today over the inclusion of cross-shaped steel beams, dubbed the "World Trade Center Cross," in the exhibit at the National September 11th Memorial and Museum.

Jane Everhart, who is part of the atheist's suit, derided the cross as nothing more than "ugly piece of wreckage" that "does not represent anything … but horror and death."

Last weekend the 17-foot cross, discovered in the rubble of 9/11, was given a "ceremonial blessing" by the Rev. Brian Jordan, removed from it's temporary post near St. Peter's Church and lowered 70 feet into its permanent home inside the museum.

But a group identified as American Atheists filed a lawsuit today claiming the inclusion of the cross-shaped steel beams promotes Christianity over all other religions on public property and diminishes the civil rights of non-Christians.

"The Christian community found a piece of rubble that looked like an icon and they deified it. But really 9/11 had nothing to do with Christianity," said American Atheists president Dave Silverman. "They want a monopoly and we don't want that to happen."

"It just so happens that the WTC was made out of T-joints and they found a T-joint," Silverman said. "They put it in the church, kept in the church for years, prayed over it, blessed it. You don't get to do that just in the coincidence that your icon looks like a T-joint."

Atheists Sue Over Cross in 9/11 Memorial and Museum

In a statement to ABCNews.com, the memorial foundation identified the cross as a "symbol of spiritual comfort for the thousands of recovery workers who toiled at ground zero," as well as an "authentic physical reminder" that "tell[s the story of 9/11 in a way nothing else can."

The atheist group said that they have contacted the 9/11 Memorial and Museum requesting to display their own atheistic memorial next to the steel-shaped cross, possibly in the form of an atom or an American flag, to represent the "500 non-religious Americans" who were "among the victims of the 9/11 attack."

The response, they claim, was "dead space."

Silverman also said that, "We have not heard of any other religious groups at all that have been allowed to put something up."

The 9/11 Memorial foundation told ABCNews.com that other religious artifacts will be included in the 9/11 Memorial Museum. A Star of David cut from WTC steel and a Bible fused to a piece of steel that was found during recovery efforts will both be on display in the same historical exhibition as the cross.

A Jewish prayer shawl, donated by a victim's family member, will be part of the museum's memorial exhibition.

The cross was moved into the exhibition earlier than the other artifacts due to its large size, according to the Memorial foundation.

. . .

http://abcnews.go.com/US/atheists-sue-cross-world-trade-center-museum/story?id=14169830


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 03, 2012, 10:17:55 AM
Why are some atheists so disrespectful?

Fallen Marine’s Wife Speaks Out on Cross Controversy, Says Atheist Group Is Not Showing Respect
by Fox and Friends     

Two, thirteen-foot crosses that stand on top of a hill at Camp Pendleton in California are now subject to removal because of an atheist group’s complaint. The crosses were were placed there by seven marines to honor their fallen friend. Three men who put up the crosses have died in the line of duty and their families are outraged by the atheist group’s pursuit. Karen Mendoza, whose husband helped build the memorial and was killed in combat in 2005, joined Fox & Friends to talk about her husband and the controversy.

She said, “The cross is very important not only to my personal family, but to my entire Marine Corps. family…” She continued by saying that she “was very sad” to learn about the cries to remove the crosses. “I was sad to hear that this group that claims to be American did not give this little sign of respect to our service members, not only to the fallen service members but to the service members that continue to serve our country so they’re allowed to voice their opinion. I feel like they are not really showing the respect that is needed.”

Speaking about her late husband, Karen said, “He would want people to look at this cross and to say it’s not about religion, it’s about sacrifice. It’s about remembering the fallen and going through the grieving process today altogether as a country.”

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/fallen-marines-wife-speaks-out-on-cross-controversy-says-atheist-group-is-not-showing-respect/


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on May 03, 2012, 10:26:57 AM
Have a blessed day atheists!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: tonymctones on May 03, 2012, 03:25:25 PM
funny, how atheist rant and rave about atheism not being a religion and then you start a thread about atheism on a RELIGION BOARD!!!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 03, 2012, 06:02:25 PM
Have a blessed day atheists!
Thanks, buddy!



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 06, 2012, 01:12:16 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on May 06, 2012, 05:28:18 AM
funny, how atheist rant and rave about atheism not being a religion and then you start a thread about atheism on a RELIGION BOARD!!!

someone has to oppose ignorance and evil, I have no problem combating religion and all of the vile shit it brings into this world. The fact that you find it odd that atheism would be on a religious board strikes me as ironic and somewhat idiotic. Where else would atheism be? it exists only due to religion, it's goal imo should be to enlighten people and free them of primitive thought and childish beliefs which are quite clearly the root of most of humanities problems.

I also, find it funny that beach bum can't formulate his own opinion and just copy and pastes non-sequitors, lol.

religion is a proven negative, even on society, why you cling to it I will never know, i guess comfort wins over logic for you.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 06, 2012, 08:39:46 AM
Why do atheists have churches with ordained ministers?  What's next, an atheist Bible?  Or do they already have one?
 

With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.

As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.

Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.

The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.

You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question.

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: godeep on May 06, 2012, 11:05:51 AM
I was born into a Southern Baptist family. As I got older and wiser, I had come to the conclusion that all religion was utter nonsense and proclaimed myself a devout atheist. That was until, I found my faith again...the Pastafarians and the Church of the FSM really have shown me the path to enlightenment


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on May 06, 2012, 03:26:28 PM
Why do atheists have churches with ordained ministers?  What's next, an atheist Bible?  Or do they already have one?
 

With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.

As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.

Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.

The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.

You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question.

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

Meltdown, lol.

go watch ben stein lie some more. Where are the transitional fossils brah? talking snakes, virgin births, walking on water etc.. you are right people with those beliefs should be unopposed, whats wrong with grown men believing in magic.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 07, 2012, 11:17:57 AM
Why are some atheists so angry?

Quote
why was my post deleted, who is the shitty moderator, WHO, WHO wont wear the ribbon?

fact of the matter is that these religious folk have no right blessing public property, why can't you guys just keep to yourselves? why do you think you have to right to do shit like this? just like the nativity scenes in washington, you are not special and deserve nothing.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on May 07, 2012, 11:38:30 AM

Why are some atheists so angry?


Let's be clear, there are many "religious folk" that are equally as angry all the time.  I think both angry parties become angry with those with differing beliefs that are genuinely content with their lives despite all the reasons that suggest they shouldn't be LOL.  Some chalk it up to "ignorance being bliss" and others stay angry because others "CAN'T GRASP WHY I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!!"   Many atheists and agnostics lead happy, peaceful lives because they belief there is nothing after they die other than to return to the cosmos that randomly formed them out of stardust.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 07, 2012, 11:43:01 AM
Let's be clear, there are many "religious folk" that are equally as angry all the time.  I think both angry parties become angry with those with differing beliefs that are genuinely content with their lives despite all the reasons that suggest they shouldn't be LOL.  Some chalk it up to "ignorance being bliss" and others stay angry because others "CAN'T GRASP WHY I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!!"   Many atheists and agnostics lead happy, peaceful lives because they belief there is nothing after they die other than to return to the cosmos that randomly formed them out of stardust.



I agree.  That's why I said "some."  One of my good buddies is atheist.  Great guy.  Happy.  Really smart.  A pleasure to be around.  He's married to an atheist, who is the same way. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on May 07, 2012, 11:48:06 AM
I agree.  That's why I said "some."  One of my good buddies is atheist.  Great guy.  Happy.  Really smart.  A pleasure to be around.  He's married to an atheist, who is the same way. 

You are correct, there are plenty of angry atheists....Getbig has a number of them.  It also has some peaceful atheists too....not many LOL, but some.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on May 07, 2012, 02:00:32 PM
You are correct, there are plenty of angry atheists....Getbig has a number of them.  It also has some peaceful atheists too....not many LOL, but some.

if you guys are basing character analysis based off a debate board on religious topics then i don't know what to tell you. I literally never talk about religion, am a doctor and help people everyday. I devote my life to others and reducing suffering, my gripe is alot of suffering in this world is due to religion and i will oppose something i deem evil with vitriol. It comprises all i hate, stupidity, faith, evil and irrationality, i see religion providing nothing novel.

there is nothing peaceful about people who believe i will burn in hell for not believing as you do, perhaps you guys should cast that judgement onto yourselves, not very christian of you to judge others, isn't that gods job. At least do me a solid and pretend to follow what you spew, your passive aggressive non-sense is not lost on me.

also, i see no reason to be kind to those who favor myth over reason nor see a reason why any atheist should put up with bullshit like homophobia etc. Beach bum claims to be christian yet this thread is a microcosm of his issues, he wishes not to discuss just attack, his posts in this thread alone bear that out. He also cannot think for himself as everything is a copy and paste. What noble lives you must lead, oh and beach bum if you didn't realize, which i'm sure you didn't my post was from seinfeld and the aids ribbon, it was a joke.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 07, 2012, 02:19:03 PM
if you guys are basing character analysis based off a debate board on religious topics then i don't know what to tell you. I literally never talk about religion, am a doctor and help people everyday. I devote my life to others and reducing suffering, my gripe is alot of suffering in this world is due to religion and i will oppose something i deem evil with vitriol. It comprises all i hate, stupidity, faith, evil and irrationality, i see religion providing nothing novel.

there is nothing peaceful about people who believe i will burn in hell for not believing as you do, perhaps you guys should cast that judgement onto yourselves, not very christian of you to judge others, isn't that gods job. At least do me a solid and pretend to follow what you spew, your passive aggressive non-sense is not lost on me.

also, i see no reason to be kind to those who favor myth over reason nor see a reason why any atheist should put up with bullshit like homophobia etc. Beach bum claims to be christian yet this thread is a microcosm of his issues, he wishes not to discuss just attack, his posts in this thread alone bear that out. He also cannot think for himself as everything is a copy and paste. What noble lives you must lead, oh and beach bum if you didn't realize, which i'm sure you didn't my post was from seinfeld and the aids ribbon, it was a joke.

I didn't say anything about anyone's character.

I rarely talk religion in real life either. 

I think you answered one of my questions about why some atheists are so angry:  you get angry with people who disagree with you.  You must be angry quite a bit.  lol 

What I posted (and will continue to post) are factual stories about paranoid anti-religious extremists.  More to follow.  Stay tuned.   :)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on May 07, 2012, 04:13:55 PM
I didn't say anything about anyone's character.

I rarely talk religion in real life either. 

I think you answered one of my questions about why some atheists are so angry:  you get angry with people who disagree with you.  You must be angry quite a bit.  lol 

What I posted (and will continue to post) are factual stories about paranoid anti-religious extremists.  More to follow.  Stay tuned.   :)

you are passive aggressive, you quoted me and made the comment about angry atheists, thus implying i'm angry, and you formed it as a rhetorical question. I of course infer all of this immediately but you seem to either not realize you are being passive aggressive or are a coward and don't stand by what you speak.

I'm glad you post these stories, the whole bunch are stupid i just see a point or at least an ideal in the atheists actions that is noble, regardless of that it's a waste of time and idiotic. I'm not angry with people who disagree with me, i however, am angry at people who cannot concede points, who won't listen to logic and refuse to take others point of view.

I can admit god might exist, i can see where you are coming from, i have the sense of awe blah blah however, the religious have nothing of this trait, they simply have the answers and personally i feel there is no place in the future for closed minded bigots, maybe that's just me.Shit if evidence came out that hinted god might exist i'd jump on it, but on the flipside nothing can convince you otherwise. It must be nice having all the answers, especially to the most difficult questions, i'd call it arrogance, you call it faith.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 07, 2012, 04:26:49 PM
you are passive aggressive, you quoted me and made the comment about angry atheists, thus implying i'm angry, and you formed it as a rhetorical question. I of course infer all of this immediately but you seem to either not realize you are being passive aggressive or are a coward and don't stand by what you speak.

I'm glad you post these stories, the whole bunch are stupid i just see a point or at least an ideal in the atheists actions that is noble, regardless of that it's a waste of time and idiotic. I'm not angry with people who disagree with me, i however, am angry at people who cannot concede points, who won't listen to logic and refuse to take others point of view.

I can admit god might exist, i can see where you are coming from, i have the sense of awe blah blah however, the religious have nothing of this trait, they simply have the answers and personally i feel there is no place in the future for closed minded bigots, maybe that's just me.Shit if evidence came out that hinted god might exist i'd jump on it, but on the flipside nothing can convince you otherwise. It must be nice having all the answers, especially to the most difficult questions, i'd call it arrogance, you call it faith.

Don't have a clue what your first paragraph means.  You'll have to dumb it down some.  Quoting you is being passive aggressive??  I don't know if you're actually angry, but you certainly sound angry.  And bitter.    

Nothing noble at all about the stories I posted.  Just hypersensitive people with too much time on their hands.    

Wait, you're "not angry with people who disagree with" you, you're just angry with people who "refuse to take others point of view."  lol.  Seriously?  Dude.  Someone who refuses to take your point of view is someone who disagrees with you.  

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't have "all the answers."  Probably don't have most of them.   :)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on May 07, 2012, 04:47:38 PM
Don't have a clue what your first paragraph means.  You'll have to dumb it down some.  Quoting you is being passive aggressive??  I don't know if you're actually angry, but you certainly sound angry.  And bitter.    

Nothing noble at all about the stories I posted.  Just hypersensitive people with too much time on their hands.    

Wait, you're "not angry with people who disagree with" you, you're just angry with people "refuse to take others point of view."  lol.  Seriously?  Dude.  Someone who refuses to take your point of view is someone who disagrees with you.  

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't have "all the answers."  Probably don't have most of them.   :)

yes, people who refuse to take others point of view are not worth anyone's time, in argument you always have to do this to gauge your position as well as glean insight.

no quoting me, clearly implying im angry then stating you never said anyone is angry is passive aggressive. I honestly don't care to respond any more as i can see where you are taking this via obfuscation. You seem to think unless you explicitly state something implication means nothing.

so one last time.

you quote me and state why are some atheists so angry,[

quote author=Beach Bum link=topic=424496.msg6103070#msg6103070 date=1336418277]
Why are some atheists so angry?

[/quote]

this implies i'm the angry atheist

this is the comment about character, then you stated you made no such inference. I'm fine with that. I am certainly angry towards religion, bitter no, but I truly detest something that enslaves minds and tells people how to think and offers absolute answers in an uncertain world. I truly see it as evil, i'm sure you are angry at pedophiles, rapists, murderers etc so if i was defending a pedophile i'm sure you would come off as angry.

disagree with me all you want, that does not anger me, however, if you simply refuse to acknowledge others points and have your mind made up that you won't concede it makes me angry and sad that people like you exist.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 07, 2012, 04:55:07 PM
yes, people who refuse to take others point of view are not worth anyone's time, in argument you always have to do this to gauge your position as well as glean insight.

no quoting me, clearly implying im angry then stating you never said anyone is angry is passive aggressive. I honestly don't care to respond any more as i can see where you are taking this via obfuscation. You seem to think unless you explicitly state something implication means nothing.

so one last time.

you quote me and state why are some atheists so angry,[

quote author=Beach Bum link=topic=424496.msg6103070#msg6103070 date=1336418277]
Why are some atheists so angry?



this implies i'm the angry atheist

this is the comment about character, then you stated you made no such inference. I'm fine with that. I am certainly angry towards religion, bitter no, but I truly detest something that enslaves minds and tells people how to think and offers absolute answers in an uncertain world. I truly see it as evil, i'm sure you are angry at pedophiles, rapists, murderers etc so if i was defending a pedophile i'm sure you would come off as angry.

disagree with me all you want, that does not anger me, however, if you simply refuse to acknowledge others points and have your mind made up that you won't concede it makes me angry and sad that people like you exist.

Ok.  Here is where you are confused:  saying you are angry isn't saying anything about your character.  Yes, I quoted you as an example of an angry atheist.  I have no idea what your character is like.   

You have a warped view of true Christianity.  It doesn't "enslave" minds or tell people what to think.  The true essence of Christianity is the exact opposite of what you say:  it's all about choice.  It's also about critical thinking, research, study, etc.   


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 07, 2012, 05:03:09 PM
Ok.  Here is where you are confused:  saying you are angry isn't saying anything about your character.  Yes, I quoted you as an example of an angry atheist.  I have no idea what your character is like.   

You have a warped view of true Christianity.  It doesn't "enslave" minds or tell people what to think.  The true essence of Christianity is the exact opposite of what you say:  it's all about choice.  It's also about critical thinking, research, study, etc.   
Really? Where is all the debate within the Christian community over homosexual marriage?

There are precepts to every religion which explicitly forbid open and honest research.

For instance, are Christians looking to disprove the existence of their god? Of course not. That line of thinking is a sin.

Face it, had you not been born to a predominately Christian community/ country/ etc., you would believe another thing.

Does that not show you how arbitrary and random it all is?

If Christianity is such a "fact" why are there so many Muslims and Jews?

The only "wiggle room" I see in Christianity is to allow their members wealth, although the bible itself is very explicit in its warning against this.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 07, 2012, 05:14:25 PM
Really? Where is all the debate within the Christian community over homosexual marriage?

There are precepts to every religion which explicitly forbid open and honest research.

For instance, are Christians looking to disprove the existence of their god? Of course not. That line of thinking is a sin.

Face it, had you not been born to a predominately Christian community/ country/ etc., you would believe another thing.

Does that not show you how arbitrary and random it all is?

If Christianity is such a "fact" why are there so many Muslims and Jews?

The only "wiggle room" I see in Christianity is to allow their members wealth, although the bible itself is very explicit in its warning against this.


There is actually a lot of debate within the Christian community about homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general.  You even have some denominations that have accepted openly homosexual ministers, etc. 

That said, homosexuality isn't one of those subjects that's a gray area when it comes to Christianity, the Bible, etc.  It's pretty clear.  I think the debate should be around how a lot of Christians mistreat homosexuals.  They don't "hate the sin, love the sinner."  Not true of all, but certainly true of a disproportionate number of Christians. 

Your questions aren't very logical.  Why would a religion founded on a faith-based belief in God engage in study for the scientific nonexistence of God?  That's worse than an oxymoron.  Really doesn't make any sense IMO.

I never said "Christianity" is a "fact."  It's a belief system.  It's a way of life.

There is actually a lot of debate and discussion in the Christian community about all sorts of subjects, from homosexuality to abortion, etc. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 07, 2012, 05:16:57 PM
There is actually a lot of debate within the Christian community about homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general.  You even have some denominations that have accepted openly homosexual ministers, etc. 

That said, homosexuality isn't one of those subjects that's a gray area when it comes to Christianity, the Bible, etc.  It's pretty clear.  I think the debate should be around how a lot of Christians mistreat homosexuals.  They don't "hate the sin, love the sinner."  Not true of all, but certainly true of a disproportionate number of Christians. 

Your questions aren't very logical.  Why would a religion founded on a faith-based belief in God engage in study for the scientific nonexistence of God?  That's worse than an oxymoron.  Really doesn't make any sense IMO.

I never said "Christianity" is a "fact."  It's a belief system.  It's a way of life.

There is actually a lot of debate and discussion in the Christian community about all sorts of subjects, from homosexuality to abortion, etc. 
That's exactly my point.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 07, 2012, 05:21:32 PM
That's exactly my point.

I know.  The point doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  And it doesn't establish that there is a lack of critical thinking, research, debate, discussion, etc. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: tonymctones on May 07, 2012, 06:36:20 PM
someone has to oppose ignorance and evil, I have no problem combating religion and all of the vile shit it brings into this world. The fact that you find it odd that atheism would be on a religious board strikes me as ironic and somewhat idiotic. Where else would atheism be? it exists only due to religion, it's goal imo should be to enlighten people and free them of primitive thought and childish beliefs which are quite clearly the root of most of humanities problems.

I also, find it funny that beach bum can't formulate his own opinion and just copy and pastes non-sequitors, lol.

religion is a proven negative, even on society, why you cling to it I will never know, i guess comfort wins over logic for you.
pretty typical, you overlook all the good that religion brings and focus in on the bad.

Well you see many an atheist on getbig kick and scream when someone calls atheism a religion. Now you see the irony of starting an ode to atheism thread on a religious board do you not?

LOL religion isnt about comfort...

its much easier to be atheist than it is to be religious.

serious question, what basis do you use for your moral beliefs?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 07, 2012, 11:58:12 PM
I know.  The point doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  And it doesn't establish that there is a lack of critical thinking, research, debate, discussion, etc. 
You've already established absolutes even before you begin your "research".

Why study evolution, when you already KNOW that god created man in his image?

Why study what happens after death when you already KNOW you will go to heaven?

These absolutes put to rest any intellectual curiousit.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 08, 2012, 12:02:03 AM
pretty typical, you overlook all the good that religion brings and focus in on the bad.

Well you see many an atheist on getbig kick and scream when someone calls atheism a religion. Now you see the irony of starting an ode to atheism thread on a religious board do you not?

LOL religion isnt about comfort...

its much easier to be atheist than it is to be religious.

serious question, what basis do you use for your moral beliefs?
No, the whole basis of religion is the psychological comfort of pretending to know answers. Atheists don't have the answers, hence they are without its subsequent comforts.

I know you like to troll around on here and try to piss people off, but this is the place for an atheism thread. Where should I put it, the sports board?

Atheism is the default position of not having a religion. It's up to religion to prove their wild claims, and to an educated person, they don't even come close.

Why don't you just stick to playing god and telling the world what is natural, since you have more insight than the rest of the human race.

You really don't challenge yourself mentally, do you?



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on May 08, 2012, 02:49:59 AM
pretty typical, you overlook all the good that religion brings and focus in on the bad.

Well you see many an atheist on getbig kick and scream when someone calls atheism a religion. Now you see the irony of starting an ode to atheism thread on a religious board do you not?

LOL religion isnt about comfort...

its much easier to be atheist than it is to be religious.

serious question, what basis do you use for your moral beliefs?

LOL how in the world is it easier to be an atheist? All you have to do is accept christ and you get this marvelous spa package when you die. You also have a constant safety net or believe there to be one any time something goes wrong.

what does religion offer that is novel? there is nothing in religion that secular people haven't done and any of the teachings have already been taught, it's a copy and paste from older religions which are an invention of man. The fact that man invented religion indicates that humans thought/think in any manner found within holy books before they were written.


morality is based off of logic/rationality and simple reciprocation and altruism. If you are using the bible for moral fiber then you have a hard road to argue as it is one of the more morally void books i could think of. Also, if the only place you derive your morals from are holy books and the concept of god then it would mean without such would you go around doing as you please, typical bad person.

you seem to think that i care if atheism is lumped as a religion, i don't. Namely because that's beyond stupid as it is simply a lack of belief, if atheists and rational people want to get together to oppose superstition and myth then I would be there to help out, call that religion, i call it a club.

There is no central doctrine of atheism so the fact that you guys think this ode or whatever is applicable to atheists is too funny. I fine with atheists making themselves look like fools, I'm not even an atheist, im more of a pantheist and for good reason imo.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 08, 2012, 06:38:27 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on May 08, 2012, 10:17:25 AM
No, the whole basis of religion is the psychological comfort of pretending to know answers. Atheists don't have the answers, hence they are without its subsequent comforts.

I know you like to troll around on here and try to piss people off, but this is the place for an atheism thread. Where should I put it, the sports board?

Atheism is the default position of not having a religion. It's up to religion to prove their wild claims, and to an educated person, they don't even come close.

Why don't you just stick to playing god and telling the world what is natural, since you have more insight than the rest of the human race.

You really don't challenge yourself mentally, do you?



good post, the most arrogant people i know are the religious, claiming to have all the answers and their punishment for not believing as they do is eternal torture for temporal sins, it's so absurd it makes me cringe when they try to entertain intellectual debate.

i like the whole critical thinking angle,lmao, how about critically appraising noahs fucking ark? what did the canivores eat if there was only two of every animal, how did he get species from different continents, why would god kill everyone? didn't he know the outcome before it happened, you would have to be pure fucking evil to create something knowing the outcome will be  global genocide. Where is the critical thinking here? explain this to me, how can you guys believe in such bullshit without any dissonance? Doesn't it upset you to know that the stories in the bible if read to a kid alongside curious george would sound no different? both full of magic and fairy tales, both works of fiction. The moral teachings are equally barren, the ten commandments are a shitty fucking list, the first lot are all about worshipping this insecure asshole. Where are the rules against incest, rape, slavery there are none and the reason why was because morally it was acceptable back then. As we gain knowledge our morality improves, fact, cling to a book of bullshit if it makes you guys feel better but i can think of nothing special about eternal servitude no matter who it's directed towards, seems like hell to me.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Mr. Magoo on May 08, 2012, 11:29:31 AM
Ok.  Here is where you are confused:  saying you are angry isn't saying anything about your character.  Yes, I quoted you as an example of an angry atheist.  I have no idea what your character is like.   

You have a warped view of true Christianity.  It doesn't "enslave" minds or tell people what to think.  The true essence of Christianity is the exact opposite of what you say:  it's all about choice.  It's also about critical thinking, research, study, etc.   

If you consider that to be a "warped view of true Christianity", a LOT of christian denominations then are warped views of true Christianity. Many of them tell people what to think. That's the whole point of getting to children when they are young. It's easier to get them to believe. IF it was really about choice, christian denominations would be AGAINST the teaching of Christianity to children. For example, Thomas Jefferson was against the teaching of christianity to children for this very reason in a letter he wrote to his nephew. Many people hold onto the "just believe" teaching, and if someone critically thinks or reflects, they are "complicating something which is very simple". Now if by "research, study" you mean prayer and reading the bible, then yes Christians follow that route. But to say that it is perfectly acceptable and encouraged to disagree with the teaching of a church is utter nonsense. Many Christians feel that to do so is "sowing discord among the brethren". Many churches preach that the Bible is very simple, all one has to do is believe, trust, obey, etc. Remember the passage that praises those who are child like. That means people should accept what they are told. This is not an insult to Christianity (I think it says something about modern society when what I just typed^^ is taken to be an insult to Christianity), but it is what many Christians believe.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 08, 2012, 05:57:18 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on May 09, 2012, 06:43:36 AM
I know.  The point doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  And it doesn't establish that there is a lack of critical thinking, research, debate, discussion, etc. 

you start with a conclusion and try to fill the data in, thats a huge no no for critical thinking. For example the bible states adam and eve spawned humanity, now despite the clear incest that would have to occur for propagation ( the mother would have to fuck the son or father fuck the daughter, or the kids would have to fuck), it has the answer to origins layed out for you. Thats just one example of inhibitory doctrines, it claims people were created from dust in whole form etc. It's just silly to believe that and even worse is that god choose incest as a means of propagation, absurd and disgusting, i guess thats why incest isn't an commandment. Now besides the moral objections, the genetic reprocussions of this are immense, to the point that i would suggest god literally induced disease using this method, not to mention that incest of that caliber will surely almost everytime end a species. Thus using critical thinking, without any science pertaining to abiogenesis or biology we can dismiss this account.

Next biblical non sense? there is nothing inquisitive about having a conclusion preformed,  especially a hypothesis that can never be tested. It's the antithesis of inquiry and research.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 09, 2012, 01:28:26 PM
You've already established absolutes even before you begin your "research".

Why study evolution, when you already KNOW that god created man in his image?

Why study what happens after death when you already KNOW you will go to heaven?

These absolutes put to rest any intellectual curiousit.

You can't study a faith-based belief in God.  That really makes no sense.  

There is plenty to study in microevolution.  

What's to study about what happens after death?  The study of ghosts??  


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 09, 2012, 01:32:00 PM
If you consider that to be a "warped view of true Christianity", a LOT of christian denominations then are warped views of true Christianity. Many of them tell people what to think. That's the whole point of getting to children when they are young. It's easier to get them to believe. IF it was really about choice, christian denominations would be AGAINST the teaching of Christianity to children. For example, Thomas Jefferson was against the teaching of christianity to children for this very reason in a letter he wrote to his nephew. Many people hold onto the "just believe" teaching, and if someone critically thinks or reflects, they are "complicating something which is very simple". Now if by "research, study" you mean prayer and reading the bible, then yes Christians follow that route. But to say that it is perfectly acceptable and encouraged to disagree with the teaching of a church is utter nonsense. Many Christians feel that to do so is "sowing discord among the brethren". Many churches preach that the Bible is very simple, all one has to do is believe, trust, obey, etc. Remember the passage that praises those who are child like. That means people should accept what they are told. This is not an insult to Christianity (I think it says something about modern society when what I just typed^^ is taken to be an insult to Christianity), but it is what many Christians believe.

Can you give me examples of what areas you think Christian churches tell people what to think?  

Nothing wrong with training children.  Teaching them about religion, science, literature, etc. at a young age is a good thing.  

Where did Thomas Jefferson say he opposed teaching Christianity to kids?  

There are parts of the Bible that are very clear, parts that require analysis, and parts that I don't understand.  


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on May 09, 2012, 02:07:04 PM
Can you give me examples of what you areas you think Christian churches tell people what to think? 

Nothing wrong with training children.  Teaching them about religion, science, literature, etc. at a young age is a good thing. 

Where did Thomas Jefferson say he opposed teaching Christianity to kids? 

There are parts of the Bible that are very clear, parts that require analysis, and parts that I don't understand. 

the is nothing wrong with teaching facts, you are right. Religion is a guess, if you teach one why not teach them all, compare and contrast horus and jesus, you are lumping religion in with science when they couldn't be more diametrically opposed.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on May 09, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
the is nothing wrong with teaching facts, you are right. Religion is a guess, if you teach one why not teach them all, compare and contrast horus and jesus, you are lumping religion in with science when they couldn't be more diametrically opposed.

There is nothing wrong with teaching facts, theories, fiction, etc. 

The reference to teaching was about parents teaching their own kids.  Parents can choose to teach their kids whatever they want. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 09, 2012, 03:06:15 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on May 09, 2012, 03:16:01 PM
There is nothing wrong with teaching facts, theories, fiction, etc. 

The reference to teaching was about parents teaching their own kids.  Parents can choose to teach their kids whatever they want. 


totally agree.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 10, 2012, 06:51:25 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 10, 2012, 08:15:32 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: syntaxmachine on May 12, 2012, 11:38:03 AM
"Atheism" is positively boring, and is in fact an unhelpful term. Consider: we don't need a term designating our stance toward invisible gnomes (agnomism or some such), nor do we form our identities around the pretty obvious fact that there aren't gnomes. Why do we feel the need to do so with regard to a particular strand of mythology derived from Bronze Age myths?

What is interesting and worthwhile is not to form our identities around such a word and hold conventions in hotel ballrooms like a cranky minority group, but rather to put forward positive proposals about the way the world is, e.g., to discuss morality and justify it in the context of a godless universe.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: godeep on May 12, 2012, 12:24:49 PM
"Atheism" is positively boring, and is in fact an unhelpful term. Consider: we don't need a term designating our stance toward invisible gnomes (agnomism or some such), nor do we form our identities around the pretty obvious fact that there aren't gnomes. Why do we feel the need to do so with regard to a particular strand of mythology derived from Bronze Age myths?

What is interesting and worthwhile is not to form our identities around such a word and hold conventions in hotel ballrooms like a cranky minority group, but rather to put forward positive proposals about the way the world is, e.g., to discuss morality and justify it in the context of a godless universe.

Tread lightly there Syntax, I was raised on Bronze Aged Mythology copied from older myths over untold millennia and edited to serve each generations' purposes


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 12, 2012, 06:37:10 PM
Tread lightly there Syntax, I was raised on Bronze Aged Mythology copied from older myths over untold millennia and edited to serve each generations' purposes
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on May 26, 2012, 10:35:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI-TNg4YH-Q


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: DKlent on June 26, 2012, 10:01:43 AM
Why do atheists have churches with ordained ministers?  What's next, an atheist Bible?  Or do they already have one?
 



All of your "Why do atheists...?" posts are generalizations. Your real question needs to be "Why do THESE atheists...?"

I am not insecure, insensitive nor do I have a church.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on June 27, 2012, 05:50:54 AM
There is nothing wrong with teaching facts, theories, fiction, etc. 

The reference to teaching was about parents teaching their own kids.  Parents can choose to teach their kids whatever they want. 

You have your beliefs and choose to believe in them, but you haven't proven anything to anyone and you know it.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on June 27, 2012, 09:43:22 AM
You have your beliefs and choose to believe in them, but you haven't proven anything to anyone and you know it.



 ???  What exactly do I need to prove to "anyone"? 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on July 11, 2012, 12:01:06 PM

All of your "Why do atheists...?" posts are generalizations. Your real question needs to be "Why do THESE atheists...?"

I am not insecure, insensitive nor do I have a church.

You might want to take a closer look at what I posted. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on July 11, 2012, 05:35:21 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: DKlent on July 11, 2012, 06:24:50 PM
You might want to take a closer look at what I posted. 

Why are so many atheists so insecure?
Why are some atheists so paranoid? 
Why are some atheists so disrespectful?

I'm an Atheist and I'm not insecure, paranoid or disrespectful (except to that which deserves disrespect).

So your posts are generalizations.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on July 11, 2012, 06:33:11 PM
Why are so many atheists so insecure?
Why are some atheists so paranoid? 
Why are some atheists so disrespectful?

I'm an Atheist and I'm not insecure, paranoid or disrespectful (except to that which deserves disrespect).

So your posts are generalizations.

Somewhat, although I wasn't referring to all atheists.  That's why my comments were qualified.  I know atheists who are not insecure, paranoid, or disrespectful. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: DKlent on July 11, 2012, 06:38:15 PM
Somewhat, although I wasn't referring to all atheists.  That's why my comments were qualified.  I know atheists who are not insecure, paranoid, or disrespectful. 

And I know Christians who are insecure, paranoid and disrespectful and can provide sources proving this to be the case for specific Christians. So what is your point? Why post links about Atheists exhibiting negative traits when anyone can do it for Christians too? I don't get that.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on July 12, 2012, 07:41:04 AM
And I know Christians who are insecure, paranoid and disrespectful and can provide sources proving this to be the case for specific Christians. So what is your point? Why post links about Atheists exhibiting negative traits when anyone can do it for Christians too? I don't get that.

because the links are stupid, that's the point.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on July 12, 2012, 11:17:25 AM
Can atheists provide any peer-reviewed evidence that supports the existence of "The Atheist Thread"?  Honestly, there's as much evidence for the existence of "The Atheist Thread" as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Almighty Gnome.

More atrocities have been committed in the name of no God whatsoever than in any other circumstance.

Atheism is a fairytale and a product of brainwashing.....it's been proven that Atheist parents raise strictly Atheist children.    

Atheism is for the weak-minded masses that can't fend for themselves.



These are what we call jokes mind you.   :D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on July 12, 2012, 04:19:49 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on July 13, 2012, 06:20:58 AM
U mad atheist bro?

bootleg fireworks.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Shockwave on July 13, 2012, 08:09:07 AM
I think we need to return to worship the gods of old.
Zeus must be pretty pissed that no one worships him anymore.

Or hell, lets go all the way to the Norse gods. Im sure Odin would kick all our asses.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on July 13, 2012, 04:14:58 PM
And I know Christians who are insecure, paranoid and disrespectful and can provide sources proving this to be the case for specific Christians. So what is your point? Why post links about Atheists exhibiting negative traits when anyone can do it for Christians too? I don't get that.

Because this is an atheist thread, so I'm posting comments and questions about some atheists. 



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on July 13, 2012, 04:40:59 PM
Because this is an atheist thread, so I'm posting comments and questions about some atheists. 


.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: syntaxmachine on July 13, 2012, 05:47:37 PM
Here's the lowdown on generalizations.

Generalizations are fine if we are interested in a sociological sense in how certain groups tend to behave in certain ways. However, if they are being used to write off a group's opinion, then they are fallacious.

As an example of how generalizations can easily be used to write off others, I can cite the decades of research indicating that: religiosity is inversely correlated with IQ, test scores, GPA, and educational attainment more generally, plus the data showing that more intelligent children end up being less intelligent later in life, and that extremely few eminent scientists -- especially the physicists who study the celestial mechanisms Christians constantly tell us must have a religious explanation -- are religious. This holds within the U.S. and across a wide swathe of countries. The correlations are strong enough such that I can pick out a random Christian in this country and say with a high degree of confidence that they are less intelligent than a random irreligious person I pick out.

This is an interesting generalization to discuss and indeed, I have a theory as to why less intelligent people are attracted to the ideas of Christianity. But under no circumstances do I use this generalization to write off Christian opinion. One must still argue the specific propositions at hand and listen to the other side, genuinely trying to understand them before evaluating their arguments. I still must have good arguments against the supposed historical evidence for Jesus' miracles, for the supposed necessity of God's existence, and so forth. Generalizations about Christians don't relieve me of the burden of actually having a defensible worldview.

So too with Christians. If atheists have a tendency to be insecure, less happy, liberal douchebags (I haven't looked at data corroborating any of this so I don't know), then this will be an interesting sociological fact but it will not do anything to help Christians make their ideas more defensible.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Because this is an atheist thread, so I'm posting comments and questions about some atheists. 



So why did you say "some atheists"?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on July 14, 2012, 12:29:07 PM
So why did you say "some atheists"?

Because, as I said on page 1 of this thread, my comments and questions don't apply to all atheists.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: DKlent on July 14, 2012, 12:34:00 PM
Because, as I said on page 1 of this thred, my comments and questions don't apply to all atheists.


I personally see no point to it in general. Any group of any people can include all sorts of bad people. Pointing out desperate, greedy, angry, frustrated atheists doesn't prove anything.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on July 14, 2012, 12:43:24 PM

I personally see no point to it in general. Any group of any people can include all sorts of bad people. Pointing out desperate, greedy, angry, frustrated atheists doesn't prove anything.

I didn't call anyone a bad person.

Pointing out that some atheists are disrespectful, paranoid, extremists, and just as dogmatic as devout Christians proves that some atheists are disrespectful, paranoid, extemists, and just as dogmatic as some Christians.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: DKlent on July 14, 2012, 01:01:20 PM
I didn't call anyone a bad person.

Pointing out that some atheists are disrespectful, paranoid, extremists, and just as dogmatic as devout Christians proves that some atheists are disrespectful, paranoid, extemists, and just as dogmatic as some Christians.


Who is claiming that there are NO atheists who are disrespectful paranoid dogmatic etc.?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on July 14, 2012, 01:07:28 PM

Who is claiming that there are NO atheists who are disrespectful paranoid dogmatic etc.?

I don't know.  Are you?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: DKlent on July 14, 2012, 01:22:18 PM
I don't know.  Are you?


Nope.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on July 15, 2012, 05:31:45 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on July 15, 2012, 05:31:24 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on August 02, 2012, 06:23:02 AM
More from Einstein - this is why he is considered brilliant.

 A Man's only real choice is to content themselves with their imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.  The word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.   the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.  I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Donny on August 04, 2012, 09:39:44 AM
More from Einstein - this is why he is considered brilliant.

 A Man's only real choice is to content themselves with their imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.  The word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.   the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.  I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
does make you think...


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on August 05, 2012, 01:25:36 PM
Sup Getbig atheists?! 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 05, 2012, 03:40:12 PM
Sup Getbig atheists?! 
Chillin like a villain named Bob Dylan who sold smack cause he was hooked on penicilin.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on August 05, 2012, 09:45:25 PM
Chillin like a villain named Bob Dylan who sold smack cause he was hooked on penicilin.

Word.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on August 08, 2012, 03:11:16 AM
Chillin like a villain named Bob Dylan who sold smack cause he was hooked on penicilin.
Word.
Thats Groovy - Right on Ace, to the max, Boo-yah, Catch you on the rebound, Ya Dig?, Jive Turkey, So Mellow out and Take a chill pill,


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 08, 2012, 04:02:22 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on August 09, 2012, 08:35:52 AM
More from Einstein - this is why he is considered brilliant.

 A Man's only real choice is to content themselves with their imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.  The word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.   the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.  I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.

End of thread.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Overload on August 10, 2012, 06:42:43 AM
More from Einstein - this is why he is considered brilliant.

 A Man's only real choice is to content themselves with their imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.  The word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.   the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.  I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.

Great explanation.

I've been agnostic since i was 18, i went to church for 18 years and quickly learned what it was all about. People need to study history and realize why religion was put in place.


8)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on August 10, 2012, 05:23:38 PM
Great explanation.

I've been agnostic since i was 18, i went to church for 18 years and quickly learned what it was all about. People need to study history and realize why religion was put in place.


8)

There's good news!  Organized religion is not a requirement for a relationship with Christ.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on August 10, 2012, 08:28:35 PM
There's good news!  Organized religion is not a requirement for a relationship with Christ.
Christ is DEAD! No relationship possible, except an imaginary one!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on August 10, 2012, 09:56:40 PM
Christ is DEAD! No relationship possible, except an imaginary one!

Try him for yourself...prove me wrong....I double dog dare ya!!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on August 11, 2012, 12:52:38 AM
Try him for yourself...prove me wrong....I double dog dare ya!!
I prefer the route of self reliance, way more reliable.  Belief in make believe is a sure way to disappointment - no amount of belief in Santa Claus will see him come down the chimney at Christmas.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 11, 2012, 03:11:12 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 11, 2012, 03:12:07 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 11, 2012, 03:13:14 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on August 11, 2012, 09:25:53 AM
I prefer the route of self reliance, way more reliable.  Belief in make believe is a sure way to disappointment - no amount of belief in Santa Claus will see him come down the chimney at Christmas.

"Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and you will get neither."

As far as belief in make believe is concerned you are correct that it will produce nothing, but faith in Christ opens eyes to things unseen.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 18, 2012, 04:30:17 AM
"Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and you will get neither."

As far as belief in make believe is concerned you are correct that it will produce nothing, but faith in Christ opens eyes to things unseen.

Like evolution or the sun being the center of the universe, for instance?



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on August 20, 2012, 09:43:28 AM
Like evolution or the sun being the center of the universe, for instance?



Uh, ok.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on August 21, 2012, 02:42:52 PM
Why are some atheists so sensitive?  I heard that the people who filed this are actually claiming looking at this "cross" cause them emotional distress. 

Conservative law firm fights atheists’ suit over cross at 9/11 museum
By Steve Strunsky
Religion News Service, Updated: Tuesday, August 21, 9:50

A lawsuit that was filed by the group American Atheists to keep a revered cross out of the National September 11 Museum is being challenged by a conservative law firm that defends the public display of religious symbols.

The American Center for Law and Justice filed a friend-of-the-court brief Monday (Aug. 20) on behalf of the suit’s two defendants, the National September 11 Memorial & Museum Foundation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site.

Weigh InCorrections?Recommend Tweet Personal Post .“The legal arguments of the atheist organization are both offensive and absurd,” the center’s chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, said in a statement. He said 190,000 people had signed a petition opposing the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is just one more controversy surrounding the 9/11 museum, which has been delayed by an ongoing financial dispute between the foundation and the Port Authority. Most recently, the foundation has resisted efforts by some victims’ family members to place the Koenig Sphere at the entrance to the museum. Like the cross, the sphere survived the attack damaged but intact, and has become a symbol of resilience.

The 9/11 museum isn’t open yet. But the foundation plans to include the 17-foot cross among more than 1,000 objects, including firetrucks, an ambulance and the 37-foot “Last Column,” left standing on the site of the former World Trade Center. The cross is actually two intersecting steel beams, found amid the wreckage of the collapsed twin towers after the 9/11 attacks.

American Atheists filed the suit a year ago in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The suit claims that including the cross in a museum on public property amounts to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. It also asserts the presence of the cross would result in injury — emotional and even physical in the case of extreme anxiety — to atheists left feeling excluded from what should be a place of unity and healing.

The foundation acknowledged in a filing in response to the suit that the cross “was venerated by certain workers during the course of the rescue and recovery operation at Ground Zero, including in religious services conducted by a priest.”

But, it insists, the cross is being included for historical, not religious, purposes.

For its part, the foundation argues that as a private, nonprofit group, it is not bound by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the constitutional basis for the separation of church and state.

The Port Authority notes that it “has no role in the display of the steel cross in the museum.”

The Washington-based ACLJ, founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, describes itself as a nonprofit, pro bono law firm “dedicated to the concept that freedom and liberty are universal, God-given and inalienable rights that must be protected.”

Michael Frazier, a spokesman for the 9/11 foundation, said his group had not sought the center’s help. “While it may be kind, we have not been working with the ACLJ,” he said.

Edwin Kagin, the American Atheists’ national legal director, welcomed the center inserting itself into the case.

“It’s fine with me,” Kagin said. “It’s merely more proof that religion is truly behind this.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/conservative-law-firm-fights-atheists-suit-over-cross-at-911-museum/2012/08/21/0af349d0-ebc8-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on August 21, 2012, 02:44:16 PM
Waaaah! 

Group Aims to Silence Prayer at Football Games
Aug 21, 2012
By Todd Starnes

Weekends in the Deep South are anchored by two long-cherished traditions – church on Sunday and football on Friday. And it’s no surprise that in many Southern cities and towns football and faith go hand-in-hand.

That is certainly the case in Southaven, Miss. where football season generates a revival-like fervor – where traditions are treasured.

For decades, before the first pigskin was passed, before the glee club sang of the “rocket’s red glare,” the crowd would be summoned to their feet. Hats were removed. Heads were bowed. And for just a moment – a hush fell over the stadium as a student delivered an invocation.

But over the past few years the intersection of the Gospel and gridiron has erupted into a storm of controversy. Christians across the Southern states have come under a fierce and relentless attack from outsiders hell-bent on banishing prayer from high school sports.

And so it was on last Friday night when the Desoto Central Jaguars opened their football season they did so without a student-led prayer. The tradition was banished after the school system was threatened with a lawsuit.

School districts across the state of Mississippi received the letter – written by the Freedom From Religion Foundation – a Wisconsin-based group whose purpose is to “protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church.”

The FFRF’s letter informed school superintendents that it is “illegal for a public school to organize, sponsor, or lead prayers at public high school athletic events.”
“You shouldn’t have to pray in order to enjoy your high school football game,” said Annie Lauire Gaylor, co-president of the FFRF.

Gaylor told Fox News the group sent similar letters to school districts in Tennessee, Louisiana and Alabama. But the Magnolia state, she said, has been most egregious.

“We were getting so many complaints out of Mississippi about illegal prayer at sporting events,” she said. “We wanted to reiterate the law – which is very clear – that you do not have prayer and devotionals in schools – including at athletic events.”

But many Christians across the state are distressed over the ban on prayers – and some say the tactics used by the FFRF to eliminate prayers have been disturbing.

“The idea of threatening our schools leaders with litigation if they practice prayer – it’s a bit disturbing,” said Jim Burnett, pastor of Willow Pointe Church in Hattiesburg. “I think these kinds of times have a refining effect on the church. It’s time for the Christian community to stand up and speak out in a godly way.”

Carmen Kyle stood up.

She’s lived in Desoto County for more than 20 years. She has a 16-year-old who is a junior at Desoto Central High School and another child who is a seventh grader. She was part of a grassroots effort to save the high school football prayer.

Thousands of people joined a Facebook group called DesotoCounty4Prayer. Churches across north Mississippi rallied. T-shirts were made. But in the end – their efforts failed.

And on Friday night Kyle was in the bleachers with her family – watching the football game – without a prayer.

“It makes me sad for generations to come,” she told Fox News. “There’s no expression of a belief system any longer.”

On the way home from the game, Kyle’s 16-year-old son brought up the absence of prayer.

“He said, ‘that just makes me sad,” she recounted. “I said this is a perfect example – at 16-years-old where you are experiencing Christian persecution.”

“I hate it for generations to come that they won’t be able to express – that’s what prayer is,” she said. “You’re praying that God will protect those athletes, that God will surround that field with protection. You don’t have that anymore.”

It’s a tradition that’s not lost on Congressman Alan Nunnellee. The Republican represents Mississippi’s first congressional district.

“Prayer is a part of our culture in Mississippi,” he told Fox News. “We turn to prayer in times of tragedy, but it’s important for schools and extracurricular activities to prepare students to deal with the good times of life and the bad times of life. And the way we do that in Mississippi is through prayer.”

Nunellee said “prayer in public settings is part of our culture not just in Mississippi but in America.”

Nevertheless, said Gaylor, it is against the law.

“The secular constitution of the United States is part of the cultural heritage of Mississippi and is a longtime custom,” she said. “It doesn’t matter if it’s a longtime custom to violate the law. You have to stop violating it. In fact, that makes it more egregious.”

Gaylor said the fact is that many students and parents are offended by the prayers, both religious and non-religious.

“They should not have to forfeit playing on a football team or forfeit attending their football game at school because they are not religious or because they are not Christian,” she said.

But now many Christians across the southern states said they feel like second-class citizens – and in some communities there are small acts of defiance.

At Purvis High School in Hattiesburg cheerleaders passed out copies of the Lord’s Prayer – so football fans could read it during a moment of silence.

“We’re not allowed to pray as a school, so we’re doing it on our own,” student Hallie Litolff told the Hattiesburg American.

Pastor Burnett cautioned Christians on how they respond to the attacks.

“Be led by God,” he said. “We have to be careful.”

“Maybe God is asking us if we’ve had enough yet,” he wondered. “The country is turning against what we believe the Bible teaches.”

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/group-aims-to-silence-prayer-at-football-games.html


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 21, 2012, 11:43:47 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on August 22, 2012, 07:50:02 AM
Atheists' road signs attack faiths of Romney, Obama ahead of Democratic convention
By Mary Quinn O'Connor
Published August 22, 2012
FoxNews.com

CHARLOTTE, N.C. –  Just as the city of Charlotte, N.C., gears up to host the Democratic National Convention, an atheist group is mounting a billboard campaign attacking the religious faiths of President Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney.

The signs, paid for by American Atheists Incorporated (AAI) and appearing along keylocal highways, include messages such as: "Christianity: Sadistic God, Useless Savior" and "Mormonism: Magic Underwear, Baptizes Dead People, Big Money, Big Bigotry." AAI President David Silverman told FoxNews.com the signs are aimed at keeping religion and politics separate as the convention gets under way Sept. 3.

"It’s never appropriate to insult another person, it’s never appropriate to disrespect another person.”
- Christian Life Center Pastor Mark Matthews

Other faiths, including Judaism and Islam, were spared because the billboards are designed to attack GOP nominee Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and President Obama, a Christian, according to AAI. They will remain up for a month, and cost Silverman's group $15,000.

"We chose Christianity and Mormonism for these billboards because those are the religious faiths of the two presumed candidates for president," said Amanda Knief, managing director for American Atheists "The president of the United States is in a position to make life-changing decisions for all Americans. We believe it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether each candidate will choose to follow his religious faith or the U.S. Constitution when making those decisions."

But the ads have proved to be offensive to some.

"Of course it’s not appropriate, it’s never appropriate to insult another person, it’s never appropriate to disrespect another person,” Christian Life Center Pastor Mark Matthews told FoxNews.com.

Kevin Madrzykowski, general manager of the Charlotte office of Adams Outdoor Advertising, which rented billboard space to AAI, said his company backs the group's right to get its message out.

"The upcoming Democratic National Convention will bring to Charlotte people of varying viewpoints and a diversity of opinion," Madrzykowski said in a statement. "The ability to express one's opinion is a right and a privilege at the core of a democratic society."

The anti-Mormon billboard was originally planned for Tampa, where Mitt Romney will accept his nomination for president at the Republican National Convention. But private billboard companies in Tampa refused to put up the ad. Clear Channel Outdoor spokesman Jim Cullinan told the Daily Mail the American Atheists' campaign was not appropriate.

"We worked with them before, but we don't post attack ads," Cullinan said.

Silverman said the Florida companies' refusal to post billboards attacking peoples' beliefs was a case of bigotry against atheists.

“We are very happy that we found a company that allowed us to express our freedom of speech, our opinions [in Charlotte],” said Silverman.  “We are also very dismayed at the bigotry that we received in Tampa when we weren’t allowed to post our views.”

The First Amendment and freedom of speech protect American Atheists, making the billboards perfectly legal. FoxNews.com reached out to representatives for the Democratic National Convention for comment on the billboards but did not hear back.

Should religion play a role in the electorates vote for President?  “We are not a Christian nation; we have never been a Christian nation and we never will be,” said Silverman.

But some argue that religion is at the core of America. “All you have to do is go to Washington and look at all the Scripture quotations all over the buildings in Washington, D.C.,” said Matthews.

The Republican National Convention will be in Tampa August 27 - 30. The Democratic National Convention will be in Charlotte September 3 - 6.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/22/signs-attack-religion-ahead-democratic-convention/


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: MCWAY on August 22, 2012, 12:31:19 PM
.

And what purpose do homosexuals serve in the grand scheme of evolution, again?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on August 25, 2012, 12:43:15 AM
And what purpose do homosexuals serve in the grand scheme of evolution, again?
There are reminder that evolution is a flawed system, keeping mutations around for far too long.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 25, 2012, 02:35:21 AM
And what purpose do homosexuals serve in the grand scheme of evolution, again?
Good point. We need to keep reproducing at record levels.

We barely have seven billion people on the planet, way too many resources and our pollution levels are incredibly low.

Keep reading that bible of yours and educating the rest of us.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 25, 2012, 02:35:56 AM
Not to mention the fact that you're a man of hate.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 25, 2012, 09:14:36 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: MCWAY on August 26, 2012, 07:46:52 AM
Good point. We need to keep reproducing at record levels.

We barely have seven billion people on the planet, way too many resources and our pollution levels are incredibly low.

Keep reading that bible of yours and educating the rest of us.

I'm sorry. What would that purpose be for homosexuality again, in the grand scheme of evolution?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on August 26, 2012, 12:35:24 PM
.

You're 100% meme and 0% substance.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 26, 2012, 04:41:07 PM
McWay, you need to become a better Christian and reject evolution.

It's a plot by the libtards.

Thirty Percent of Texans Think Dinosaurs Lived With Humans



 And Another Thirty Percent Say They're Not Sure!

This is so very embarrassing it makes me want to walk down every street in my neighborhood and conduct my own door-to-door survey - and if the results are as fantastical as this, relocate to a more enlightened part of the country.  Honestly, are we living in 2010 or 1910?  We all know that religious fanatics like Sarah Palin, James Dobson, and born-again Texas Governor Rick Perry believe there were velociraptors in the Garden of Eden, peacefully munching on ferns and fig leaves.  But I simply can't wrap my head around the fact that one in three of my neighbors might be this scientifically challenged.  Where's my clipboard?  I'm ringing some doorbells.   
Amanda Terkel at Think Progress delivers the bad tidings:  A new University of Texas/Texas Tribune survey shows how destructive a politicized right-wing curriculum can be. A large number of Texans polled said they still don’t believe in evolution and are convinced that humans and dinosaurs co-existed...  Refusing to believe in evolution is a point of pride for many conservatives, who are also trying to indoctrinate young people with their same misguided views. The right-wing Texas State Board of Education has been reviewing the direction of the state’s social studies curriculum and textbook standards.  (Poll results below.)

 •51 percent disagree with the statement, "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals."
 •38 percent agree with the statement, "God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago."
 •30 percent agree with the statement, "Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time." Another 30 percent said they "don’t know" whether the statement is true.
 
From the Texas Tribune:  The questions were devised by David Prindle, a University of Texas government professor who authored a book called Stephen Jay Gould and the Politics of Evolution, about the late evolutionary biologist. "The end in mind is to establish the relationships, not just to get raw public opinion," he says. "We can do some fancy statistical stuff.  Is it religion driving politics or is politics driving religion?  My hypothesis is that religious views drive politics...  Prindle says the results recall a line from comedian Lewis Black. "He did a standup routine a few years back in which he said that a significant proportion of the American people think that the 'The Flintstones' is a documentary," Prindle says. "Turns out he was right. Thirty percent of Texans agree that humans and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time."  (Blatant ignorance like this is more than discouraging.  It's downright scary.)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: MCWAY on August 26, 2012, 09:07:16 PM
McWay, you need to become a better Christian and reject evolution.

It's a plot by the libtards.

Thirty Percent of Texans Think Dinosaurs Lived With Humans



 And Another Thirty Percent Say They're Not Sure!

This is so very embarrassing it makes me want to walk down every street in my neighborhood and conduct my own door-to-door survey - and if the results are as fantastical as this, relocate to a more enlightened part of the country.  Honestly, are we living in 2010 or 1910?  We all know that religious fanatics like Sarah Palin, James Dobson, and born-again Texas Governor Rick Perry believe there were velociraptors in the Garden of Eden, peacefully munching on ferns and fig leaves.  But I simply can't wrap my head around the fact that one in three of my neighbors might be this scientifically challenged.  Where's my clipboard?  I'm ringing some doorbells.   
Amanda Terkel at Think Progress delivers the bad tidings:  A new University of Texas/Texas Tribune survey shows how destructive a politicized right-wing curriculum can be. A large number of Texans polled said they still don’t believe in evolution and are convinced that humans and dinosaurs co-existed...  Refusing to believe in evolution is a point of pride for many conservatives, who are also trying to indoctrinate young people with their same misguided views. The right-wing Texas State Board of Education has been reviewing the direction of the state’s social studies curriculum and textbook standards.  (Poll results below.)

 •51 percent disagree with the statement, "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals."
 •38 percent agree with the statement, "God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago."
 •30 percent agree with the statement, "Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time." Another 30 percent said they "don’t know" whether the statement is true.
 
From the Texas Tribune:  The questions were devised by David Prindle, a University of Texas government professor who authored a book called Stephen Jay Gould and the Politics of Evolution, about the late evolutionary biologist. "The end in mind is to establish the relationships, not just to get raw public opinion," he says. "We can do some fancy statistical stuff.  Is it religion driving politics or is politics driving religion?  My hypothesis is that religious views drive politics...  Prindle says the results recall a line from comedian Lewis Black. "He did a standup routine a few years back in which he said that a significant proportion of the American people think that the 'The Flintstones' is a documentary," Prindle says. "Turns out he was right. Thirty percent of Texans agree that humans and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time."  (Blatant ignorance like this is more than discouraging.  It's downright scary.)


And this has what to do with what purpose homosexuality serves in evolution again? Maybe if you actually answer a question or two, you wouldn't sound as hollow and pathetic as you do.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 27, 2012, 02:28:47 AM
And this has what to do with what purpose homosexuality serves in evolution again? Maybe if you actually answer a question or two, you wouldn't sound as hollow and pathetic as you do.
Why even bother arguing science with someone who holds wilful ignorance in such high esteem?

The book you base your life on has been proven empirically and demonstrably false so often that, to a reasonable man, it woul have been abandoned long ago.

Just forget the parts that are obviously wrong, ignore the sections that would appeal to mercy and use only what you can to hate and oppress others.

In other words, be a man of god.

BTW, I've already explained how homosexuality could be of benefit to the human race. You chose to ignore it, which has nothing to do with me.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on August 28, 2012, 05:43:18 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: MCWAY on August 28, 2012, 12:58:37 PM
Why even bother arguing science with someone who holds wilful ignorance in such high esteem?

The book you base your life on has been proven empirically and demonstrably false so often that, to a reasonable man, it woul have been abandoned long ago.

Just forget the parts that are obviously wrong, ignore the sections that would appeal to mercy and use only what you can to hate and oppress others.

In other words, be a man of god.

BTW, I've already explained how homosexuality could be of benefit to the human race. You chose to ignore it, which has nothing to do with me.



Argue science? My degree's in engineering. In what is your degree again?

Proven wrong? Skeptics have been saying that for centuries, only to end up royally embarrassed because (despite their best efforts), they can't get rid of this pesky book, which history continues to validate and verify. But, keep trying.

Who said I ignore any parts in Scripture about mercy, unless you are of the boneheaded mindset that having mercy equates to condoning or legislating something that is morally WRONG?

Unless I missed it, your so-called explanation was simply about population control (as if we really need homosexuality for that; or are you hoping the HIV/AIDS factor will start whacking down the population).


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: MCWAY on August 28, 2012, 01:01:36 PM
.

Apparently, you need to take your own advice. Nowhere does it state that Adam and Eve has JUST two sons. Furthermore, it also state that one of them had a WIFE.

Thanks for playing.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on August 29, 2012, 05:28:36 AM
Apparently, you need to take your own advice. Nowhere does it state that Adam and Eve has JUST two sons. Furthermore, it also state that one of them had a WIFE.

Thanks for playing.

So you are just admitting that the population is due to incest?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on August 29, 2012, 05:30:22 AM
I'm sorry. What would that purpose be for homosexuality again, in the grand scheme of evolution?

Don't stop there.  Include sterile/impotent people.  The elderly.  Children who have not reach child bearing capabilities yet.  Don't limit it to a basis of sexuality. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: MCWAY on August 29, 2012, 05:41:00 AM
So you are just admitting that the population is due to incest?

Yep! Of course, if you believe that man "evolved" from a common ancestor, then you basically believe the same thing.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: MCWAY on August 29, 2012, 05:50:05 AM
Don't stop there.  Include sterile/impotent people.  The elderly.  Children who have not reach child bearing capabilities yet.  Don't limit it to a basis of sexuality. 

And what would their purpose be, in the grand scheme of evolution, too? Maybe you can address this, since Garebear seems to be tongue-tied.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on August 29, 2012, 06:23:14 AM
And what would their purpose be, in the grand scheme of evolution, too? Maybe you can address this, since Garebear seems to be tongue-tied.

They have none.  The point I was making is that you seem to base your argument on sexuality instead of encompassing a broader spectrum that harbors the same defining principle (they can't procreate) 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on August 29, 2012, 06:24:33 AM
Yep! Of course, if you believe that man "evolved" from a common ancestor, then you basically believe the same thing.

So how did you come about?  Every picture I have seen of Adam and Eve and the lot they were all white. 

Who fucked who to give us the chinese?  Are slanted eyes a result of parental sin as well like you claim MS, retardation, etc... are?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: MCWAY on August 29, 2012, 06:33:42 AM
So how did you come about?  Every picture I have seen of Adam and Eve and the lot they were all white. 

Who fucked who to give us the chinese?  Are slanted eyes a result of parental sin as well like you claim MS, retardation, etc... are?


So, the difference between your belief in a "common ancestor", as it relates to evolution vs. Adam and Eve would be......



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: MCWAY on August 29, 2012, 06:38:51 AM
They have none.  The point I was making is that you seem to base your argument on sexuality instead of encompassing a broader spectrum that harbors the same defining principle (they can't procreate) 

If you bothered following the post, you would have noticed that Garebear made his arguments SPECIFICALLY on sexuality. Thus, my counter-arguments were also based on such.

I asked him specifically what the point was for homosexuality in the grand scheme of evolution. He has not answered that.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on August 29, 2012, 06:45:09 AM

So, the difference between your belief in a "common ancestor", as it relates to evolution vs. Adam and Eve would be......



There is none, other than the criminal law that exists today that forbids one of them.

Again, how did we get blacks and chinese from incest?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on August 29, 2012, 06:47:36 AM
If you bothered following the post, you would have noticed that Garebear made his arguments SPECIFICALLY on sexuality. Thus, my counter-arguments were also based on such.

I asked him specifically what the point was for homosexuality in the grand scheme of evolution. He has not answered that.



If you bothered following MY post, it was NOT SPECIFICALLY about sexuality.  My post wasn't about, related to, or directed at garebear.  I was asking you something.  I don't care what conversation you are having with him.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: MCWAY on August 29, 2012, 06:54:10 AM
There is none, other than the criminal law that exists today that forbids one of them.

Again, how did we get blacks and chinese from incest?

You tell me. You're the one who thinks we evolved from a common ancestor. Either way, there's incest involved. And who said that common ancestor was white? For that matter, who said Adam an Even were white (other than European artists)?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on August 29, 2012, 09:01:07 AM
You tell me. You're the one who thinks we evolved from a common ancestor. Either way, there's incest involved. And who said that common ancestor was white? For that matter, who said Adam an Even were white (other than European artists)?

I never claimed the common ancestor was white.  I said it could have been purple.  You don't know.  Hell I never even claimed there was a single common ancestor as far as that goes.  As far as God, Adam and Eve, Jesus, etc.. being white......  why the good old christians teach us that.  They indoctrinate us with this in the form of art, books, paintings, movies, etc...  Heck even the illustrated Bible story books that docs have sitting in their waiting room has whitey folks in it. 

So to answer my own question, since you are avoiding it, it is IMPOSSIBLE for blacks, chinese, etc.. to have originated from a single race's inbreeding.  I don't care how many thousands of years go by, you are not going to find black parents giving birth to chinese babies.  Period.  End of discuss.  Stop sign. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: MCWAY on August 29, 2012, 09:05:46 AM
I never claimed the common ancestor was white.  I said it could have been purple.  You don't know.  Hell I never even claimed there was a single common ancestor as far as that goes.  As far as God, Adam and Eve, Jesus, etc.. being white......  why the good old christians teach us that.  They indoctrinate us with this in the form of art, books, paintings, movies, etc...  Heck even the illustrated Bible story books that docs have sitting in their waiting room has whitey folks in it.  

So to answer my own question, since you are avoiding it, it is IMPOSSIBLE for blacks, chinese, etc.. to have originated from a single race's inbreeding.  I don't care how many thousands of years go by, you are not going to find black parents giving birth to chinese babies.  Period.  End of discuss.  Stop sign.  

Not necessarily, especially considering (since you are avoiding it), you are of the belief of a common ancestor within the construct of evolution.
Therefore, no matter how you slice it, there's some incest involved at some level. BTW, you confirmed your belief in a common ancestor. When I asked you, point blank, what the difference between YOUR belief in a common ancestor as it relates to evolution vs. Adam & Eve in Creation, your answer was "There is none."





Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on August 29, 2012, 04:59:32 PM
.

completely incorrect LOL!!!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: The Scott on August 29, 2012, 05:53:58 PM
I know plenty of atheists.  They are good people, in fact some are better at abiding by the laws of God and man that more than a few Christians, Jews or Buddists that I have known. 

For the greater part I judge people on an individual basis.  I am not God and in the end if God exists and we require judgment I suspect He will judge according to His wisdom and with fairness for all concerned.  If I, a simple man can discern between good and evil, right and wrong and what is just and fair over that which is unjust and unfair, well how much more the one who created all of this?

We may well be made in the image of God, but each of us paints our own portrait.  It would appear that some people bought a paint by numbers set.  Not saying who or what they may or may not believe in, just that it is so.

Butterbean, if you read this give me a PM as I may have some "sermons" that might interest you.  Thanks!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on August 30, 2012, 08:08:56 AM
My point of incest was not to deny it at all.  Where did you get that?  Hello?

The point is the hypocrisy of basing the entire human race on something that is both illegal and forbidden by God himself. 

Again, why are Chinese parents not having black babies now days?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on August 30, 2012, 11:05:37 AM
My point of incest was not to deny it at all.  Where did you get that?  Hello?

The point is the hypocrisy of basing the entire human race on something that is both illegal and forbidden by God himself. 

Again, why are Chinese parents not having black babies now days?

Something being initially permitted for a very specific purpose and then later forbidden for a new purpose by the creator is not hypocritical.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on August 30, 2012, 11:29:12 AM
Something being initially permitted for a very specific purpose and then later forbidden for a new purpose by the creator is not hypocritical.

Of course it is.  Saying otherwise is just hypocritical.

Like murder perhaps?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 04, 2012, 09:08:25 PM
Of course it is.  Saying otherwise is just hypocritical.

Like murder perhaps?

Sorry, but it just isn't.  Making a change because it's best for the circumstances isn't hypocritical.  Something that once had a valid, specific purpose may not always be permitted if the specific valid, purpose no longer exists in current circumstances. 

What does murder have to do with this?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 05, 2012, 05:55:19 AM
Sorry, it is.  Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.  You can't try to justify it with defining parameters just to suit your side of the argument.

What has murder got to do with it?  Another example of God's hypocrisy.  Despite telling everyone not to murder, he kills all his children.   But hey....  that was for a valid specific purpose wasn't it?  So was Rwanda depending on who you ask.  Guess it was ok then too?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 06, 2012, 08:46:34 AM
Sorry, it is.  Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.  You can't try to justify it with defining parameters just to suit your side of the argument.

What has murder got to do with it?  Another example of God's hypocrisy.  Despite telling everyone not to murder, he kills all his children.   But hey....  that was for a valid specific purpose wasn't it?  So was Rwanda depending on who you ask.  Guess it was ok then too?

I'm not certain you understand what hypocrisy means and I don't mean that to be insulting either.   Maybe I don't understand your definition of hypocrisy.

God murders all his children?  


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 07, 2012, 07:30:53 AM
I'm not certain you understand what hypocrisy means and I don't mean that to be insulting either.   Maybe I don't understand your definition of hypocrisy.

God murders all his children?  

Apparently you haven't read the book that you claim to follow.  You know... the flood?  But hey, as long as murder is for a very specific purpose, it is alright. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 07, 2012, 07:39:29 AM
Apparently you haven't read the book that you claim to follow.  You know... the flood?  But hey, as long as murder is for a very specific purpose, it is alright. 

The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.

God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 07, 2012, 10:29:45 AM
And yet it hasn't happened again today.... why?

Or was Rwanda, Bosnia, etc..  justified?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 07, 2012, 12:18:03 PM
And yet it hasn't happened again today.... why?

Or was Rwanda, Bosnia, etc..  justified?

I suppose because the whole of the earth isn't corrupt today and those within it that are corrupted are not deemed beyond conversion.

Rwanda or Bosnia justified?  Man do you reach and stretch.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 09, 2012, 12:32:33 PM
The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.

God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.

so everyone deserved to die? thats absurd brah. Everyone was evil? I mean what acts were they commiting that death was the penalty, seems harsh to kill everyone. Doesn't god know the future? shouldn't this type of thing be prevented, it's almost like admitting a mistake.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 10, 2012, 03:47:44 AM
I suppose because the whole of the earth isn't corrupt today and those within it that are corrupted are not deemed beyond conversion.

Rwanda or Bosnia justified?  Man do you reach and stretch.

You think the world is more or less corrupt today than then?  Pick an answer.

As I said, murder is only justified when God does it even though it makes him a hypocrite.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 10, 2012, 05:04:43 PM
You think the world is more or less corrupt today than then?  Pick an answer.

As I said, murder is only justified when God does it even though it makes him a hypocrite.

I stand by exactly what I said.  The whole of the earth isn't corrupt, but there is still evil in the world.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 10, 2012, 05:35:23 PM
I stand by exactly what I said.  The whole of the earth isn't corrupt, but there is still evil in the world.

 man just admit that god is a hypocrite would you? are you trying to fool yourself? Let's see thou shalt not kill, he kills everyone ::)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 11, 2012, 04:12:04 AM
 ::)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 11, 2012, 06:52:52 AM
man just admit that god is a hypocrite would you? are you trying to fool yourself? Let's see thou shalt not kill, he kills everyone ::)

The consistent claims of "HYPOCRISY!!" completely ignore both purpose and justice.....divine purpose and justice at that.  With no personal concept or believe in God there is no acknowledgement of divine purpose and/or justice.  It's so very easy to strip out divine qualities, context, perspective, purpose, etc....and just review the act alone.  It just doesn't work that way.     


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 11, 2012, 11:21:16 AM
The consistent claims of "HYPOCRISY!!" completely ignore both purpose and justice.....divine purpose and justice at that.  With no personal concept or believe in God there is no acknowledgement of divine purpose and/or justice.  It's so very easy to strip out divine qualities, context, perspective, purpose, etc....and just review the act alone.  It just doesn't work that way.     

how do you know? are you divine? the only idea of hypocrisy that you can even define is the one in which we experience and relate to. Using the only definition of hypocrisy, god is just that. You can obfuscate the idea with meaningless concepts but god killed everyone basically, your god is terrible for obvious reasons.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on September 12, 2012, 01:51:56 AM
 ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 12, 2012, 04:32:09 AM
how do you know? are you divine? the only idea of hypocrisy that you can even define is the one in which we experience and relate to. Using the only definition of hypocrisy, god is just that. You can obfuscate the idea with meaningless concepts but god killed everyone basically, your god is terrible for obvious reasons.

Exactly. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 12, 2012, 11:34:55 AM
how do you know? are you divine? the only idea of hypocrisy that you can even define is the one in which we experience and relate to. Using the only definition of hypocrisy, god is just that. You can obfuscate the idea with meaningless concepts but god killed everyone basically, your god is terrible for obvious reasons.

Again, God permitted an act for a certain purpose and when that purpose was no longer needed he then outlawed the original act.  How is that hypocritical?  I allow my own child to engage in certain behaviors given circumstances, but once those circumstances change the original behavior may no longer suit it and I have to guide my child in a new direction.  Like I mentioned, remove context and purpose and all your left with is a capricious change.  Theologians aren't in disagreement over this concept.  Still, if you two want to sleep with your sisters you have the freedom to choose to do so.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 12, 2012, 05:09:32 PM
Again, God permitted an act for a certain purpose and when that purpose was no longer needed he then outlawed the original act.  How is that hypocritical?  I allow my own child to engage in certain behaviors given circumstances, but once those circumstances change the original behavior may no longer suit it and I have to guide my child in a new direction.  Like I mentioned, remove context and purpose and all your left with is a capricious change.  Theologians aren't in disagreement over this concept.  Still, if you two want to sleep with your sisters you have the freedom to choose to do so.

Jesus, the cognitive dissonance you must experience writing something like this must be intense. If you tell your children not to steal yet you steal then you are a hypocrite. God can't forbid something he himself does, it completely negates any logic. Why should we abide by rules he himself cannot follow?

Oh ya divine purpose and all that bullshit. Doesn't god know the future? so he created all these people knowing he would later kill them? so fucked up.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: haider on September 12, 2012, 05:31:44 PM
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=424496.0;attach=482068;image)
I condone this based purely on the hilarity  ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on September 12, 2012, 09:12:14 PM
Again, God permitted an act for a certain purpose and when that purpose was no longer needed he then outlawed the original act.  How is that hypocritical?  I allow my own child to engage in certain behaviors given circumstances, but once those circumstances change the original behavior may no longer suit it and I have to guide my child in a new direction.  Like I mentioned, remove context and purpose and all your left with is a capricious change.  Theologians aren't in disagreement over this concept.  Still, if you two want to sleep with your sisters you have the freedom to choose to do so.
Translation :  I'll do whatever the FUCK I want to do! BECAUSE THE bible TELLS ME So!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on September 12, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
Again, God permitted an act for a certain purpose and when that purpose was no longer needed he then outlawed the original act.  How is that hypocritical?  I allow my own child to engage in certain behaviors given circumstances, but once those circumstances change the original behavior may no longer suit it and I have to guide my child in a new direction.  Like I mentioned, remove context and purpose and all your left with is a capricious change.  Theologians aren't in disagreement over this concept.  Still, if you two want to sleep with your sisters you have the freedom to choose to do so.
Hey that sounds familiar - isn't the ideology behind a DICTATORSHIP - DO WHAT YOUR TOLD WHEN YOUR TOLD AND IF WE DECIDE TO CHANGE OUR MINDS YOU ARE NO LONGER PERMITTED TO DO WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY TOLD YOU TO DO. DON'T BACKCHAT! JUST DO WHAT YOUR TOLD OR I WILL GET THE ROD FROM THE CUPBOARD.  Your poor children are going to grow up with the most skewed way of looking at the world, they will never understand Boundaries and will never be able to trust anyone as you have raised them in an inconsistent manner.  Looks like the Apple won't be falling far from the tree! One religious Nutjob raising another religious Nutjob! Oh Brother, is there any hope for humanity!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 13, 2012, 05:33:31 AM
Translation :  I'll do whatever the FUCK I want to do! BECAUSE THE bible TELLS ME So!

And then claim it was justified.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 13, 2012, 05:34:12 AM
Jesus, the cognitive dissonance you must experience writing something like this must be intense. If you tell your children not to steal yet you steal then you are a hypocrite. God can't forbid something he himself does, it completely negates any logic. Why should we abide by rules he himself cannot follow?

Oh ya divine purpose and all that bullshit. Doesn't god know the future? so he created all these people knowing he would later kill them? so fucked up.

Exactly x 2


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 13, 2012, 08:17:20 AM
Hey that sounds familiar - isn't the ideology behind a DICTATORSHIP - DO WHAT YOUR TOLD WHEN YOUR TOLD AND IF WE DECIDE TO CHANGE OUR MINDS YOU ARE NO LONGER PERMITTED TO DO WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY TOLD YOU TO DO. DON'T BACKCHAT! JUST DO WHAT YOUR TOLD OR I WILL GET THE ROD FROM THE CUPBOARD.  Your poor children are going to grow up with the most skewed way of looking at the world, they will never understand Boundaries and will never be able to trust anyone as you have raised them in an inconsistent manner.  Looks like the Apple won't be falling far from the tree! One religious Nutjob raising another religious Nutjob! Oh Brother, is there any hope for humanity!

A dictator may make capricious changes or adopt a "do as I say, not as I do" approach, but there is certainly benefit for the dictator in doing so.  Sometimes that benefit is one sided (always favoring the dictator) and other times it may not be; regardless, there is always a benefit (either perceived and/or realized) for the dictator and that beneficial change is contingent on the community of folks subject to the dictator's rule.  

The difference here is God isn't dependent upon us for anything.....there is no benefit for God.   God graciously, lovingly works within the context of our lives in order to benefit and strengthen us and draw us closer to him...that's the missing purpose and perspective.  Doesn't mean we're going to follow his will or his law....we don't have to.  

LOL!  Again, if you fellas wanna bang your parents, siblings or cousins by all means go for it.  



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 13, 2012, 08:22:38 AM
Translation :  I'll do whatever the FUCK I want to do! BECAUSE THE bible TELLS ME So!

???


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on September 13, 2012, 08:23:34 AM
A dictator may make capricious changes or adopt a "do as I say, not as I do" approach, but there is certainly benefit for the dictator in doing so.  Sometimes that benefit is one sided (always favoring the dictator) and other times it may not be; regardless, there is always a benefit (either perceived and/or realized) for the dictator and that beneficial change is contingent on the community of folks subject to the dictator's rule.  

The difference here is God isn't dependent upon us for anything.....there is no benefit for God.   God graciously, lovingly works within the context of our lives in order to benefit and strengthen us and draw us closer to him...that's the missing purpose and perspective.  Doesn't mean we're going to follow his will or his law....we don't have to.  

LOL!  Again, if you fellas wanna bang your parents, siblings or cousins by all means go for it.  


Wow, I was waiting for you to flame on like a wrathful deity! but you kept your cool and responded well. Didn't Cain bang his mother though! He must have shagged Eve silly, otherwise we wouldn't be here right?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 13, 2012, 08:38:55 AM
Wow, I was waiting for you to flame on like a wrathful deity! but you kept your cool and responded well. Didn't Cain bang his mother though! He must have shagged Eve silly, otherwise we wouldn't be here right?

Well, unfortunately, I'm used to folks taking potshots online or trying to anger me by suggesting things about my family (I think I've read every vile comment there is to read in that regard).  Do I like the comments?  Of course not, but me lashing out in kind doesn't represent Christ or my family; plus, I know if we were in person sitting across from one another in discussion how different the tone would be.  With the internet comes unbridled chutzpah empowering most the freedom to unleash however they choose as oceans sometimes seperate those replying with one another.  

Online, people say what they really feel, but in person with me.....LOL......not so much.  In a strange way the online honesty is sometimes a good thing.

Oh yeah, Adam and Eve had many children so Cain's wife was one of the other kids.....his sister.
  


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on September 13, 2012, 07:51:27 PM
Well, unfortunately, I'm used to folks taking potshots online or trying to anger me by suggesting things about my family (I think I've read every vile comment there is to read in that regard).  Do I like the comments?  Of course not, but me lashing out in kind doesn't represent Christ or my family; plus, I know if we were in person sitting across from one another in discussion how different the tone would be.  With the internet comes unbridled chutzpah empowering most the freedom to unleash however they choose as oceans sometimes seperate those replying with one another.  

Online, people say what they really feel, but in person with me.....LOL......not so much.  In a strange way the online honesty is sometimes a good thing.

Oh yeah, Adam and Eve had many children so Cain's wife was one of the other kids.....his sister.
  
Oh, Cain's wife was his sister, that's alright then, for a moment there I though Cain did something really perverse, Like Shag his Mother!  Thanks for clearing that up!  ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 13, 2012, 08:08:59 PM
Oh, Cain's wife was his sister, that's alright then, for a moment there I though Cain did something really perverse, Like Shag his Mother!  Thanks for clearing that up!  ;D

Today incest isn't permitted or treated as appropriate. We understand the genetic implications that can arise from incest today, but prior to God outlawing incest there technically was no concept of "incest"......you simply married a relative because...well....that's all there was to marry.  Once the generational lines had been expanded and the population strengthened God outlawed the "act of incest".  Again, when the situation called for an appropriate change guided by definite purpose (conceivably because of the negative genetic implications) the act was ended for the betterment of people. 

Yes, today the idea of incest is ridiculous and creepy because the standard has long been set concerning what appropriate relationships are and because we fully grasp the medical implications of incestuous relationships. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 14, 2012, 07:14:50 AM
Today incest isn't permitted or treated as appropriate. We understand the genetic implications that can arise from incest today, but prior to God outlawing incest there technically was no concept of "incest"......you simply married a relative because...well....that's all there was to marry.  Once the generational lines had been expanded and the population strengthened God outlawed the "act of incest".  Again, when the situation called for an appropriate change guided by definite purpose (conceivably because of the negative genetic implications) the act was ended for the betterment of people. 

Yes, today the idea of incest is ridiculous and creepy because the standard has long been set concerning what appropriate relationships are and because we fully grasp the medical implications of incestuous relationships. 

so as the genetic implications became less of a concern he outlawed it? wtf? it makes no sense, you know why something makes no sense, because it's not true. When what you are saying makes no sense, you are generally wrong.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 14, 2012, 07:20:41 AM
so as the genetic implications became less of a concern he outlawed it? wtf? it makes no sense, you know why something makes no sense, because it's not true. When what you are saying makes no sense, you are generally wrong.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  As the generational lines expanded the genetic implications became more of concern...the problem was escalated in essence. 

The early generations weren't as far removed from the fall of man as the later generations; hence, earlier generations were seemingly less sensitive to implications of incestuous relationships. 

This is how I've understood it.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 15, 2012, 08:44:46 PM
Sorry if I wasn't clear.  As the generational lines expanded the genetic implications became more of concern...the problem was escalated in essence. 

The early generations weren't as far removed from the fall of man as the later generations; hence, earlier generations were seemingly less sensitive to implications of incestuous relationships. 

This is how I've understood it.

I'm sorry, I really don't follow. It was ok for a little while, while the genetic pool was not diverse, but then, as the genetic pool grew more diverse then it became a problem?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 16, 2012, 02:54:47 AM
I'm sorry, I really don't follow. It was ok for a little while, while the genetic pool was not diverse, but then, as the genetic pool grew more diverse then it became a problem?
Yes as our belief is that our seed was stronger with Adam and has been watered down after every single generation. Put it this way if Noah was the father of all nations he would have had to have all the exceptional skills and traits of Blacks, Chinese, Europeans, Natives etc, so as his seed is spread the strength is hindered per generation.

 Noah had 3 off-springs; 1. Shem, where we get the term Semitic, and he is the father of people with white skin, 2. Ham where we get the term Hamitic and he is the father of blacks, 3. Japheth where we get the term Japhatic race and he is the father of Orientals, however he did have a few off-spring who went to Europe and this is up for debate between Biblical scholars.  All races are a combination of these 3 men.

According to the Bible these 3 men lived over 500 years and several generations later Abraham's father Terah lived 205 years, while Araham lived for 180 years, Moses lived for 120 years, fast forward to King David, he lived for only 70 years. My point is that this pattern you see of the life span is one that is diminishing through out the ages and finally reaching an equilibrium with king David. So as the seed was strong enough to produce a human entity that lived for 200+ years it was also strong enough to produce a healthy off-spring from 2 close relatives. As the seed became weaker problems started arising in off-spring from 2 close relatives, hence it is no longer accepted.

Anyway as you believe in evolution and obviously do not consider this valid in any way. This is how a theologian that studies this matter perceives this issues, so this is an explanation from our perspective, not interested in debating between the lines  8)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 16, 2012, 04:46:29 PM
Anyway as you believe in evolution and obviously do not consider this valid in any way.

What I don't consider valid is the absolute lack of any scientific evidence to substantiate a position on a topic that is purely scientific. What it boils down to, if we play that game, is that I'll have keep taking your word for any subject. Gravity? Forget science - theologians have answered that. Solar eclipses? Forget science - theologians have answered that. Etc.


This is how a theologian that studies this matter perceives this issues, so this is an explanation from our perspective, not interested in debating between the lines  8)

You'd imagine that the various religions (and their adherents) learned their lesson after being forced to eat crow about the whole Galileo snafu. But, apparently, you'd be wrong.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 16, 2012, 07:22:54 PM
What I don't consider valid is the absolute lack of any scientific evidence to substantiate a position on a topic that is purely scientific. What it boils down to, if we play that game, is that I'll have keep taking your word for any subject. Gravity? Forget science - theologians have answered that. Solar eclipses? Forget science - theologians have answered that. Etc.


You'd imagine that the various religions (and their adherents) learned their lesson after being forced to eat crow about the whole Galileo snafu. But, apparently, you'd be wrong.
There are 1000's of ancient documents of people who lived for well over 150+ years but the problem is anything outside of evolution is automatically BS.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 16, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
There are 1000's of ancient documents of people who lived for well over 150+ years but the problem is anything outside of evolution is automatically BS.

The question isn't the number of available documents, but the veracity of this information. After all there are thousands of ancient documents staying that lightning was caused by Zeus, sitting like a Boss up on Mount Olympus, but I'm pretty sure that you don't put much stock in those documents. The simple fact is that you believe the documents that make claims consistent with your pre-existing beliefs and that you then use those claims to reinforce your beliefs.

The facts speak for themselves: The average life expectancy in classical Greece hovered around 30, give or take 5 years. The average life expectancy has been on a rising trend (modulo some periods involving major wars or events such as plagues). Note that this isn't really all that remarkable. If nothing else it can be attributed to our increased understanding of medicine has improved and the availability of quality care. What were once fatal injuries today can be minor inconveniences.

But when we take a look at places like Angola and Nigeria, where the standard of living isn't that far removed from what it was back a thousand years ago, the average life expectancy is decades below that in the Western World - hovering at around 40.

So stop taking everything you read in your religious book at face value and start using what you have between your head. After all, if your God exists, he didn't intend that you forego use of the rational faculty that he endowed  you with.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 16, 2012, 08:12:45 PM
Look who is talking, taking evolution at face value, now that is a joke, you should use what's inside the head of your  ;)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 16, 2012, 08:56:50 PM
Look who is talking, taking evolution at face value, now that is a joke, you should use what's inside the head of your  ;)

I don't take evolution at face value, but even if I did are you suggesting that my actions justify your stupidity?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 16, 2012, 09:11:35 PM
I don't take evolution at face value, but even if I did are you suggesting that my actions justify your stupidity?
No I am suggesting you practice what you preach


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 16, 2012, 09:18:40 PM
No I am suggesting you practice what you preach

If by that you mean examine evolution with a critical eye then you'll be happy to know I already have. I rely on facts and science, and the facts and the science tell me that evolution is, at this point, the theory that best fits the observable facts and which best predicts outcomes we observe. Could something better come along? Sure. Could it be discredited completely? It's possible, albeit very highly unlikely; worse case scenario, the theory is improved and strengthened.

You see, unlike you, I don't have blind faith in anything.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 16, 2012, 09:45:40 PM
If by that you mean examine evolution with a critical eye then you'll be happy to know I already have. I rely on facts and science, and the facts and the science tell me that evolution is, at this point, the theory that best fits the observable facts and which best predicts outcomes we observe. Could something better come along? Sure. Could it be discredited completely? It's possible, albeit very highly unlikely; worse case scenario, the theory is improved and strengthened.

You see, unlike you, I don't have blind faith in anything.
But that is your view but to some one else it looks silly. You are so convince that what you believe is the truth that you say it is science and everything else is baloni. Nothing I believe in hinders science in the slightest but yet you say it does cause you have created this idea in your mind that evolution is science, when in fact evolution is a myth. That is not a statement made from a religious perspective it is simply very vague in certain areas and based on much assumption that in my opinion and many others is flawed. Are there some valid points in evolution, of course, many.

Now let me give you an example of your close minded mind set. We have read such Greek Mythology and folklore and we have read the epics of Gilgamesh, these are clearly exaggerated stories that the author intends for you to not take them literally. Now there is the book of Jasher and this book is very incredible and has documented warfare that has in fact been verified through Archaeology and is an extremely accurate account of what took place. Clearly the author has absolutely no intentions on being inaccurate in anyway he only wishes that he documents everything to a T. In one such story the author has Abraham dying at 180 years old.

Now just so you can win an argument on getbig you classify the 2 stories as one category and you compare the story of the Patriarch in Jasher to that of Zeus and Hercules, why, because one line in the entire story that tells you he lived to 180 years, instead of accepting the possibility that maybe he did live to 180 years. There are lots of scientist who believe that it is possible under certain atmospheric conditions and under certain circumstance the nature of life could be completely different then what we see today and they keep within the compounds of science, but to you oh the story says he lived to 180, it is now mythology.

Oh BTW I rely on facts and science as well.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 16, 2012, 11:54:32 PM
But that is your view but to some one else it looks silly. You are so convince that what you believe is the truth that you say it is science and everything else is baloni. Nothing I believe in hinders science in the slightest but yet you say it does cause you have created this idea in your mind that evolution is science, when in fact evolution is a myth. That is not a statement made from a religious perspective it is simply very vague in certain areas and based on much assumption that in my opinion and many others is flawed. Are there some valid points in evolution, of course, many.

Evolution is a myth? Oh... your... god...  ::)


Now let me give you an example of your close minded mind set. We have read such Greek Mythology and folklore and we have read the epics of Gilgamesh, these are clearly exaggerated stories that the author intends for you to not take them literally. Now there is the book of Jasher and this book is very incredible and has documented warfare that has in fact been verified through Archaeology and is an extremely accurate account of what took place. Clearly the author has absolutely no intentions on being inaccurate in anyway he only wishes that he documents everything to a T. In one such story the author has Abraham dying at 180 years old.

That a particular account bears some semblance to what actually occured doesn't mean that everything in that account is accurate. We know the Trojan War took place and that parts of the Iliad accurately reflect (according to the evidence we have uncovered) events that actually took place. But that is hardly evidence that Achilles was actually invulnerable everywhere except his heel, because that's where Thetis held onto him while dipping him into the river Styx.


Now just so you can win an argument on getbig you classify the 2 stories as one category and you compare the story of the Patriarch in Jasher to that of Zeus and Hercules, why, because one line in the entire story that tells you he lived to 180 years, instead of accepting the possibility that maybe he did live to 180 years. There are lots of scientist who believe that it is possible under certain atmospheric conditions and under certain circumstance the nature of life could be completely different then what we see today and they keep within the compounds of science, but to you oh the story says he lived to 180, it is now mythology.

No. I point out the absurdity of your position: namely that you assume that anything that is already congruent with and supports your world view and preexisting beliefs is ipso facto accurate. That's bullshit reasoning. To put it another way, you believe that we all originated from Adam and Eve, and that incest was OK then because, somehow, our DNA was more perfect. As evidence you use the fact that the Bible says that people lived a really long time, which you automatically assume to be true.

You have no idea about things like allele frequencies and genetic drift or genetics in general, but you have no qualms about making grand proclamations such as "evolution is a myth" or stating that somehow incest was OK and recessive alleles wouldn't have caused problems, until, well... it magically would.

Oh BTW I rely on facts and science as well.

Oh absolutely! I think, if nothing else, your last few posts have made that indisputable fact crystal clear.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 17, 2012, 12:23:00 AM
Sarcasm? is that how you chose to debate?

There you go again Comparing work of a manuscript that has every intentions of telling it how it is to a poem, Homer`s work is poetic, have you not read it?... it falls under folklore and not intended to be 100% accurate, unless you believe in Cyclops  ???..... I don`t automatically believe anything like you claim, I like to keep an open mind but I would not disregard a text or in this case hundreds of them that state humans lived very long as untrue just cause I don`t believe humans can live long because I am restricted to that of a theory that`s states that it is not possible or just cause it is not possible today. Many scientist believe it was possible, so they are all delusional right?

Now coming from Adam is a personal belief I have I don`t claim it to be scientific or a fact of any sort as I am the first to admit that I have no evidence of this whatsoever so you using that against me is stupid as I freely admit I can not prove it. See I don`t play games or presume to know things like you. I state theories and reasons that theologians have and I don`t think anyone is crazy cause they believe something bizarre. We don`t have the answers and everything is still a puzzle to the scientific community, we haven`t even scratched the surface. You can not say 100% that anything I believe is untrue, you can`t and as soon as you admit that you won`t be so closed minded.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 17, 2012, 07:10:26 AM
Sarcasm? is that how you chose to debate?

How else should I address someone who says, with a straight face, "in fact evolution is a myth."


There you go again Comparing work of a manuscript that has every intentions of telling it how it is to a poem, Homer`s work is poetic, have you not read it?... it falls under folklore and not intended to be 100% accurate, unless you believe in Cyclops  ???.....

On what grounds do you say that the manuscript in question has any intention of being accurate? The fact is that the text of Book of Jasher is widely believed to be lost and the texts purporting to be it are not believed to be so.

Besides, I see very little difference between the Iliad and the Bible (well, except for the fact that the Iliad doesn't purport to be the inerrant word of God, or to tell humans how to live, or to purport to have the answer to questions, etc.).


I don`t automatically believe anything like you claim, I like to keep an open mind but I would not disregard a text or in this case hundreds of them that state humans lived very long as untrue

Whether you disregard it or not is your business. The facts are that even some of the non-extreme ages reported are exceedingly unlikely to be true. Again, look at the average life span in Angola, where life today is not really all that different from a few hundred years ago: it hovers around 38. And this is despite massive efforts to raise the standard of living and provide clean drinking water and adequate sustenance.

You can believe that somehow, magically, people lived to be hundreds of years old, but don't pretend this belief is in any way rationally justified. That some references can be found to such ages doesn't constitute proof.


just cause I don`t believe humans can live long because I am restricted to that of a theory that`s states that it is not possible or just cause it is not possible today.

I don't know what theory you are referring to that states such a thing. Care to elaborate?


Many scientist believe it was possible, so they are all delusional right?

The question isn't what scientists believe. I'm sure that scientists believe many different things; some may even hold contradictory beliefs. But that's irrelevant. Because the question isn't what scientists believe. The question is what scientists can prove within the framework of science?


Now coming from Adam is a personal belief I have I don`t claim it to be scientific or a fact of any sort as I am the first to admit that I have no evidence of this whatsoever so you using that against me is stupid as I freely admit I can not prove it. See I don`t play games or presume to know things like you. I state theories and reasons that theologians have and I don`t think anyone is crazy cause they believe something bizarre. We don`t have the answers and everything is still a puzzle to the scientific community, we haven`t even scratched the surface. You can not say 100% that anything I believe is untrue, you can`t and as soon as you admit that you won`t be so closed minded.

I don't have to "say 100% that anything [you] believe is untrue." The onus isn't on me to disprove or discredit your beliefs. The onus is on you to prove them if you want them to merit serious consideration.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 17, 2012, 07:32:57 AM
 don't have to "say 100% that anything [you] believe is untrue." The onus isn't on me to disprove or discredit your beliefs. The onus is on you to prove them if you want them to merit serious consideration.

I keep hearing this but that is not my point. My point is that my belief, sense you can not prove it to be wrong or I can no prove it to be right, falls into the same category as your theory of evolution, as I can not prove it to be wrong and you can not prove it to be right.

On what grounds do you say that the manuscript in question has any intention of being accurate? The fact is that the text of Book of Jasher is widely believed to be lost and the texts purporting to be it are not believed to be so.


What? did you just google that, lmao..... trust me it is accepted by theologians, those are a bunch of trolls that have bombarded google with that crap, lol, nice try. Do you actually think if was not accepted that the jewish Rabbis would reference it?

Last point sense we are chasing a dogs tail here. If a texts says someone lived for 180 years does not make it so, duh, of course not. But it is a possibility regardless of how improbable it may sound and for you to say that I am not being rational for thinking that it is a possibility is ignorant and this ignorance is the result of your theory of evolution and it actually hinders science. Puts restrictions on what actually is possible.

 Like I said some scientist, yes they have Phds believe people could have lived longer then they do today and they give a perfectly sound explanation for their reasoning. What, you do not believe me, ya I am making that up  ::).... Cmon now do not be lazy I am sure you can google that too, it is not hard and you seem to be a google king. If you really can not find anything on this then I will dig something up for you later, I guess  :-\


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 17, 2012, 08:29:10 AM
don't have to "say 100% that anything [you] believe is untrue." The onus isn't on me to disprove or discredit your beliefs. The onus is on you to prove them if you want them to merit serious consideration.

I keep hearing this but that is not my point. My point is that my belief, sense you can not prove it to be wrong or I can no prove it to be right, falls into the same category as your theory of evolution, as I can not prove it to be wrong and you can not prove it to be right.

No. They do not fall in the same category. One is a belief in the absence of (or even contrary to your evidence), and the other is a scientific theory, supported by a plethora of evidence.


On what grounds do you say that the manuscript in question has any intention of being accurate? The fact is that the text of Book of Jasher is widely believed to be lost and the texts purporting to be it are not believed to be so.


What? did you just google that, lmao..... trust me it is accepted by theologians, those are a bunch of trolls that have bombarded google with that crap, lol, nice try. Do you actually think if was not accepted that the jewish Rabbis would reference it?

Actually no, I didn't. I've read the Bible extensively and have read a lot about the apocryphal texts and their history. Google isn't necessary.

As for Jewish Rabbis referencing it, well, the fact is that they reference reference the collective writings of nomads and sheep-herders as the divine and inspired word of God, so their track record doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Also LOL... yeah, it's the trolls... ::) Remember this bit, which I posted earlier: "you assume that anything that is already congruent with and supports your world view and preexisting beliefs is ipso facto accurate. That's bullshit reasoning." Well congratulations! You just leveled up. Now, on top of that, anything that isn't congruent with and supportive of your world view is ipso facto inaccurate and the work of trolls.


Last point sense we are chasing a dogs tail here. If a texts says someone lived for 180 years does not make it so, duh, of course not.

And yet, you believe that is so. And that the reason for this extraordinary longevity in the face of no preventative care or advanced medical science was magical DNA that was better than it is now...


But it is a possibility regardless of how improbable it may sound and for you to say that I am not being rational for thinking that it is a possibility is ignorant and this ignorance is the result of your theory of evolution and it actually hinders science. Puts restrictions on what actually is possible.

You're confused. The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the matter and I'm not sure why you dragged it into the discussion to begin with.

As for your little putting "restrictions" comment, I think that only reinforces the point that you don't know anything about what the theory of evolution actually says.


Like I said some scientist, yes they have Phds believe people could have lived longer then they do today and they give a perfectly sound explanation for their reasoning.

What scientists believe isn't my concern. The badge "scientist" doesn't magically make someone's beliefs true. That's why scientists don't rely on beliefs. They rely on the scientific method.


What, you do not believe me, ya I am making that up  ::).... Cmon now do not be lazy I am sure you can google that too, it is not hard and you seem to be a google king. If you really can not find anything on this then I will dig something up for you later, I guess  :-\

You're making the assertions, feel free to do the research and produce the quotes, preferably from publications in peer-reviewed journals. ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 17, 2012, 08:36:12 AM
I'm sorry, I really don't follow. It was ok for a little while, while the genetic pool was not diverse, but then, as the genetic pool grew more diverse then it became a problem?

Yep, that's the gist.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 17, 2012, 08:43:20 AM
Yep, that's the gist.

Moar details plz.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 17, 2012, 08:46:25 AM
Moar details plz.

Don't have any at my fingertips to provide you.  I have some books at home.  Google?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 17, 2012, 08:47:03 AM
Don't have any at my fingertips to provide you.  I have some books at home.  Google?

If you make a claim then you must support that claim.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 17, 2012, 08:47:55 AM
Lol, well I believe you have read the Bible but you have not read Jasher, lol, it is not one of the Apochrypha books sorry.

You said so yourself that it is a possibility that the theory of evolution can be replaced in the future and if that is the case it obviously is not proven and something that can not be proven has to be taken by faith, hence the theory of evolution is religion not scientific fact, it falls in the same category. Have to go will be back later   ;) have a nice day  8)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 17, 2012, 08:54:12 AM
If you make a claim then you must support that claim.
Noted in my diary...thx!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 17, 2012, 08:54:30 AM
Lol, well I believe you have read the Bible but you have not read Jasher, lol, it is not one of the Apochrypha books sorry.

No, I don't claim to have read Jasher. That would be very hard to do, as the original text is considered lost to the mists of time.


You said so yourself that it is a possibility that the theory of evolution can be replaced in the future and if that is the case it obviously is not proven and something that can not be proven has to be taken by faith, hence the theory of evolution is religion not scientific fact, it falls in the same category. Have to go will be back later   ;) have a nice day  8)

No, see... "proven" doesn't mean what you think it means. Proven doesn't mean "settled once and for all and not changing ever again." There's no such thing in science.

You really ought to consider taking an introductory course in the philosophy of science. Or, at least, an introductory course in a science - any science. I'd suggest physics.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 19, 2012, 05:57:55 AM
Evolution is a myth?  Then explain why so many Christians get a flu shot every year.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 19, 2012, 06:44:51 AM
Evolution is a myth?  Then explain why so many Christians get a flu shot every year.
To help in not gettin the flu.

The concept of mutation via microevolution is accepted by many Christians.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 19, 2012, 08:06:50 AM
Evolution is evolution no matter what scale it occurs on.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 19, 2012, 08:46:53 AM
To help in not gettin the flu.

The concept of mutation via microevolution is accepted by many Christians.

macroevolution has been observed, why do you continue this lie?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 19, 2012, 08:59:09 AM
macroevolution has been observed, why do you continue this lie?

I didn't mention macroevolution, but since you're fishing I'm just gonna be upfront and pass on the "transitional form, prehistoric deer to a whale, bacteria in the lab, radiometric dating, intelligent design" macroevolution "google warrior" back and forth today.  


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 19, 2012, 11:04:17 AM
With regards to evolution, what are creationists views on the skeletons that have been discovered of primitive humans...?

And all the cave paintings of ancient humans that date beyond 6000 BC and that show them with wooly mammoths and other extinct animals?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 19, 2012, 12:44:50 PM
With regards to evolution, what are creationists views on the skeletons that have been discovered of primitive humans...?

And all the cave paintings of ancient humans that date beyond 6000 BC and that show them with wooly mammoths and other extinct animals?
Pics or it didn't happen.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 19, 2012, 01:47:57 PM
I didn't mention macroevolution, but since you're fishing I'm just gonna be upfront and pass on the "transitional form, prehistoric deer to a whale, bacteria in the lab, radiometric dating, intelligent design" macroevolution "google warrior" back and forth today.  

microevolution as you mentioned is macro evolution, your implication was that is was a distinct thing, hence the acceptance as you stated.

Seriously, why do you deny reality, perhaps god choose this method? but denying reality seems a bit odd to me.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 19, 2012, 05:05:07 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
Even though I have no interest in this thread, and the qur'an does not dwelve on specifics of noah's ark like the bible in supposed intricate detail. You are an intellectual fraud, when you claim it says 50,000 and 2 million insects, etc... The bible says no such thing.

You only reinforce the stereotype that atheists are only good at jesting, ridiculing and mocking to defend their insecure beliefs.

To be fair, 450 feet long ship is pretty impressive. That is what the Chinese Muslim explorer Zheng He's ship length was here is a comparison:

(http://www.alrahalah.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ChinaZhengHeShip1405vsSantaMaria500pxw.jpg)

The little insect ship is Colombus' santa maria with whom he took muslims as slaves to 'india' I mean the new world lol :)







(http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/may2012/titanicunderwaterb.jpg)

God sank the ship arrogant epic fail


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 19, 2012, 05:15:18 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 19, 2012, 05:16:12 PM
Even though I have no interest in this thread, and the qur'an does not dwelve on specifics of noah's ark like the bible in supposed intricate detail. You are an intellectual fraud, when you claim it says 50,000 and 2 million insects, etc... The bible says no such thing.

You only reinforce the stereotype that atheists are only good at jesting, ridiculing and mocking to defend their insecure beliefs.

To be fair, 450 feet long ship is pretty impressive. That is what the Chinese Muslim explorer Zheng He's ship length was here is a comparison:

(http://www.alrahalah.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ChinaZhengHeShip1405vsSantaMaria500pxw.jpg)

The little insect ship is olombus' santa maria with whom he took muslims as slaves to 'india' I mean the new world lol :)
I don't murder people when atheism is insulted.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 05:18:06 PM
No one insults atheism, you are just annoying trolling schools and government buildings demanding religion to be banned/destroyed/move out/etc...

Since darwinism you've got a foothold in society


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 05:22:30 PM
Lol God let that slide for only a few hours. Haha:

(http://images.pcnabs.multiply.com/image/1/photos/upload/300x300/R7rOxQoKCmQAADOCWvc1/titanic%20new%20york's%20times.jpg?et=ye%2BqvWHecpL9%2B83j9kzQDg&nmid=&nmid=82719306)

No not laughing at the victims just at the guy who thought that God could not sink this ship  ::)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 19, 2012, 05:26:54 PM
Lol God let that slide for only a few hours. Haha:

(http://images.pcnabs.multiply.com/image/1/photos/upload/300x300/R7rOxQoKCmQAADOCWvc1/titanic%20new%20york's%20times.jpg?et=ye%2BqvWHecpL9%2B83j9kzQDg&nmid=&nmid=82719306)

No not laughing at the victims just at the guy who thought that God could not sink this ship  ::)
Did god kill them because they said it?

That's mature.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 07:21:14 PM
No not laughing at the victims just at the guy who thought that God could not sink this ship  ::)

Yeah. What a douche. But no worries. God sure showed him! ... by killing a bunch of other people.  ::)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Shockwave on September 19, 2012, 07:53:50 PM
I don't murder people when atheism is insulted.
Zing.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 20, 2012, 05:41:32 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 20, 2012, 06:17:30 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 20, 2012, 06:43:47 AM
microevolution as you mentioned is macro evolution, your implication was that is was a distinct thing, hence the acceptance as you stated.

Seriously, why do you deny reality, perhaps god choose this method? but denying reality seems a bit odd to me.

I'm denying or affirming anything....I just responded to the flu shot bit LOL.  Y'all wanna have a knockdown, drag out discussion about evolution then by all means do that. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 20, 2012, 10:28:51 AM
I'm denying or affirming anything....I just responded to the flu shot bit LOL.  Y'all wanna have a knockdown, drag out discussion about evolution then by all means do that. 

you using microevolution indicates that you don't realize that no one uses that term in the manner which you used it. Small changes are usually called adaptations, macroevolution is speciation. This terminology is not something one see's throughout the literature, it's not a bad terminology, some do use it, but it's mostly associated with creationism.

Guess I already know where you are going.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 11:40:13 AM
Because we don't come from monkeys stupid  8) Or sea creatures  ::)

(http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/media/treeolif.jpg)

I see what you did there

You know I also find it funny how you guys open up to this monkey business when someone is agreeing with you but when someone doesnt believe this crap, you start either denying it no no its ont like that or no no you dont understand.

I have an encyclopedia circa mid 90s which has pages tackling lucy and an evolution tree, etc...

I could draw pretty pictures and imagine fairy tales of evolution too and if i was agreeing with you, youd be like good job son! Spread the truth haleluya!  But if i was disagreeing youd be again "no no but you dont understand"

There is no evidence for your beliefs.

As mentioned already the only 'evolution' happening is adaptation in species within their dna design.

You can't explain squat, about how organs came to be and then the whole creatures as they are. You just speculate and resort to everything taking millions of years. Great proof you have.

I've debated alot of atheists throughout the years. Online and offline lol. Once out of shear humor I pretended I was pro-evolution and I did the same thing posting all sorts of info on evolution and they all were oh wow yeah yeah you go bro! Then when I did the same thing iwth another account and said how its fradulent etc... same information mind you, they were being mad  ;D Made me lolcopter alot


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 20, 2012, 11:45:13 AM
Because we don't come from monkeys stupid  8) Or sea creatures  ::)

(http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/media/treeolif.jpg)

I see what you did there

You know I also find it funny how you guys open up to this monkey business when someone is agreeing with you but when someone doesnt believe this crap, you start either denying it no no its ont like that or no no you dont understand.

I have an encyclopedia circa mid 90s which has pages tackling lucy and an evolution tree, etc...

I could draw pretty pictures and imagine fairy tales of evolution too and if i was agreeing with you, youd be like good job son! Spread the truth haleluya!  But if i was disagreeing youd be again "no no but you dont understand"

There is no evidence for your beliefs.

As mentioned already the only 'evolution' happening is adaptation in species within their dna design.

You can't explain squat, about how organs came to be and then the whole creatures as they are. You just speculate and resort to everything taking millions of years. Great proof you have.

You are a shitty troll.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 11:46:21 AM
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/troll_9e391b_1894668.jpg)

Look what I did there.. troll evolution  ;D

Such pretty drawings:

(http://inspirationalfreethought.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/p2130210.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 20, 2012, 12:29:44 PM
you using microevolution indicates that you don't realize that no one uses that term in the manner which you used it. Small changes are usually called adaptations, macroevolution is speciation. This terminology is not something one see's throughout the literature, it's not a bad terminology, some do use it, but it's mostly associated with creationism.

Guess I already know where you are going.

I've stated my position before and I will again because it's very simple.  I don't have all the answers.    

When a scientific breakthrough occurs I don't slam my eyes shut, cover my ears and start bellowing "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" and singing "Jesus Loves Me".  I like finding the harmony between God and man's discoveries within his creation.  Personally I don't have certainty about 6 24hr days of creation.  Is evolution the vehicle for God's creation?  I'm open to it.

Point is, I don't have all the answers and I'm humble enough to admit that.

Still, despite it all, I have experienced the risen Christ in my life and I want to share that with others with the hope that they can experience the same.      


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 20, 2012, 01:43:38 PM
I've stated my position before and I will again because it's very simple.  I don't have all the answers.    

When a scientific breakthrough occurs I don't slam my eyes shut, cover my ears and start bellowing "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" and singing "Jesus Loves Me".  I like finding the harmony between God and man's discoveries within his creation.  I personally don't believe in 6 literal days of creation.  Is evolution one vehicle for God's creation?  I'm open to it.

Point is, I don't have all the answers and I'm humble enough to admit that.

Still, despite it all, I have experienced the risen Christ in my life and I want to share that with others with the hope that they can experience the same.      

I am completely fine with your position, completely. Read more on evolution, it is a fact, many things can be disputed within the theory, that is the magic of science. Does punctuated equilibrium occur? I don't know, let's try and disprove it. etc etc.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 01:57:51 PM
Where is this evidence you guys keep talking about  ???

Besides making claims visually about creatures appearing the same or similar then giving gaps in between creatures and citing it takes millions of years or hundreds of million years. I see no real hard evidence at all?

The fossil record shows species appearing then dissapearing. The end. No in betweeners.

Then when it comes to these 'theoretical' transitional species and the millions of years of 'evolution'... how did they develop their distinct organs. They didnt just go poof there's an eye. poof there's a heart. Poof there's a liver. Poof there's lungs. Poof there's legs and arms.. poof wings appear. Poof vagina and penis appear.

I do not deny creatures adapting to their environment, but i understand this within their genetic confines. For example amongst humans different hair, different skin. But we fundementally remain the same creature with all the components of organs, systems, etc...

Radiation or mutation dont turn us into super heroes. They cause us to die and damage dna.

The thing that baffles me is Darwin said sometihng along the lines of.. if a complex organism was found it would crumble his theory entirely and at his time he could not even see the contents of a cell, he saw a blob. We know today thanks to modern microscopes that cells are basically a small factory!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 20, 2012, 02:04:32 PM
I am completely fine with your position, completely. Read more on evolution, it is a fact, many things can be disputed within the theory, that is the magic of science. Does punctuated equilibrium occur? I don't know, let's try and disprove it. etc etc.


How can something be a fact if it is a theory? and avxo said that it is a possibility that the theory could be replaced with something different in the future, so how can this be a fact if there is a possibility that it can be replaced with a new theory or is avxo talking crap  ???


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 20, 2012, 02:18:59 PM
How can something be a fact if it is a theory? and avxo said that it is a possibility that the theory could be replaced with something different in the future, so how can this be a fact if there is a possibility that it can be replaced with a new theory or is avxo talking crap  ???

the fact that things evolve is a fact, the theory of evolution could very well be replaced with a better theory that explains the data better or changes in light of new data. Mutations are a fact, natural selection is a fact, the fossil record is a fact, genetics are factual and so on, evolution is a theory posited by Darwin but drastically changed since his concept, the field of genetics which is immense was not even in play.

Avxo is correct.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 20, 2012, 02:24:57 PM
Where is this evidence you guys keep talking about  ???

Fossils, genetics, homology, observation etc.

Besides making claims visually about creatures appearing the same or similar then giving gaps in between creatures and citing it takes millions of years or hundreds of million years. I see no real hard evidence at all?

first i would like to point out that completely intact fossils are rare, they are the exception. Also, you seem to misunderstand evolution.

The fossil record shows species appearing then dissapearing. The end. No in betweeners.

Then when it comes to these 'theoretical' transitional species and the millions of years of 'evolution'... how did they develop their distinct organs. They didnt just go poof there's an eye. poof there's a heart. Poof there's a liver. Poof there's lungs. Poof there's legs and arms.. poof wings appear. Poof vagina and penis appear.

no, the eye for example, could simply be a light sensing cell, which allows a creature to know there is light. Then it increases the number of cells for acuity and more sensing power. The cells then differentiate wavelength and voila color. Now it starts to become pitted, which allows for orientation, where the light is coming from, which would be beneficial and so on. nothing appears magically. You are confused my friend, everything is in transition, you wouldn't see half eyes that don't work because it offers no benefit to the host, things don't evolve for the sake of it.

I do not deny creatures adapting to their environment, but i understand this within their genetic confines. For example amongst humans different hair, different skin. But we fundementally remain the same creature with all the components of organs, systems, etc...

Radiation or mutation dont turn us into super heroes. They cause us to die and damage dna.

radiation is vastly different from point deletions, or various other deletions. sickle cell isn't anything like radiation poisoning.

The thing that baffles me is Darwin said sometihng along the lines of.. if a complex organism was found it would crumble his theory entirely and at his time he could not even see the contents of a cell, he saw a blob. We know today thanks to modern microscopes that cells are basically a small factory!

As for the last part of your statement, I honestly don't know where you got this info, it's not true.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Shockwave on September 20, 2012, 02:25:15 PM
Personally I don't have certainty about 6 24hr days of creation.
Are we even certain it means 6 24 hour days?
6 Days to god may be 1000's of years to people. I've always wondered about that, but I'm not well versed enough in the bible to argue what is said... but the question always sticks in my mind.... 6 days... to whom?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 20, 2012, 02:27:18 PM
Are we even certain it means 6 24 hour days?
6 Days to god may be 1000's of years to people. I've always wondered about that, but I'm not well versed enough in the bible to argue what is said... but the question always sticks in my mind.... 6 days... to whom?

why the confusion, what other type of days are there? I mean why speculate if you could never know the answer and we have an idea of what days are. I think it's clear as day what is meant, but because it's so incorrect, people twist it.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 02:37:01 PM
How can something be a fact if it is a theory? and avxo said that it is a possibility that the theory could be replaced with something different in the future, so how can this be a fact if there is a possibility that it can be replaced with a new theory or is avxo talking crap  ???

This lol


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 02:37:48 PM
why the confusion, what other type of days are there? I mean why speculate if you could never know the answer and we have an idea of what days are. I think it's clear as day what is meant, but because it's so incorrect, people twist it.

Guess how many hours the days on other planets are? What is time? It is defined via certain referenced paramters. In our case the sun and moon play a big role in how we determine 'time'.

"He it is who made the sun a shining brightness and the moon a reflected light, and ordained for it stages that you might know the computation of years and the reckoning. Allah did not create it but with truth; He makes the signs manifest for a people of understanding Quran surah Jonas 10:5

In islamic scholarship the understanding of the 6 days can be understood as periods and not necessarily 24 hours as per earth hours and earth days.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 02:50:59 PM
Empty statements repeated by "Oh but you don't understand". Yet again!

Quote
Fossils, genetics, homology, observation etc.

You yourself say fossils are rare and barely complete in other words you could take any rubbish bones and imagine whatever you want and conclude AAAH this is what must have been. If your faith of darwinism was true, the earth would be LOADED with these transitional forms.

Genetics? Oh really? Besides knowing that DNA is source code on which all life is derived. There is nothing that shows that mutations add genetic material but rather distort it and destroy it. Radiation doesn't cause us to become super heroes.

You can't start with a small 'bit' of dna then magically get a whole creature with developed heart, brain, liver, arms, muscles, skeletal system, nervous system, reproductive system, male and female repsectively unique of each other. It's programmed to work in harmony COMPLETE and whole. That's why otherwise we have DEFORMITIES if something is wrong with DNA or there is DNA damage

Oh I know... it took 'hundreds of millions of yeras'. That's so damn baseless you cant begin to imagine as you try to make me 'imagine' all this. It's ludicrous

I will post some examples which basically make a ridicule of the claim that genetics 'prove' that we are evolved. More on that later.

Homology? oOoOoOh classifying bones! That proves nothing. It's like a kid given a game to make similar things stand together in order. It means nothing.

Observation? Yeah okay! If I observe what's around us it shows in the absolute OPPOSITE of any of your claims! Unless you think that seeing visually 'similar' creatures with necks means that one must have evolved from another so its neck grew over millions of years.. and one who had legs magically transformed into wings.

That's why I said xmen, spiderman, superman, wonder woman... thats what you are proposing. Fiction and imagination. Not reality.

Quote

first i would like to point out that completely intact fossils are rare, they are the exception. Also, you seem to misunderstand evolution.

Lol. So you use your IMAGINATION to DRAW visually representations of creatures you've NEVER SEEN or know for sure what they are. Brilliant!

How is that a PIG TOOTH becomes THIS:

(http://evolutionisntscience.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/nebraska-man-evolution-fraud.jpg?w=510)

Oh it was a 'mistake' riiight. It just shows what 'science' you employ to believe in this hocus pocus evolution theory.

Quote
no, the eye for example, could simply be a light sensing cell, which allows a creature to know there is light. Then it increases the number of cells for acuity and more sensing power. The cells then differentiate wavelength and voila color. Now it starts to become pitted, which allows for orientation, where the light is coming from, which would be beneficial and so on. nothing appears magically. You are confused my friend, everything is in transition, you wouldn't see half eyes that don't work because it offers no benefit to the host, things don't evolve for the sake of it.

Brilliant so you have an understanding of how a biological camera works. I do too. I love it, its beautiful its pretty amazing. But I dont conclude it magically evolved from some primitive cell then hundreds of milloins of years later through some unknown means VOILA evolution theory you have a whole eye that is now symmetrically a part of a human's face that sees in 3D!

And you are saying this magically just developed on its own somehow because it 'sensed' something and then POOF an eye? HMMMM strong evidence!

(http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~avery/course/3400/vision/eye_human_detail.gif)





Hmmm evolution!:

A million years ago:
(http://magazine.bikeradar.com/files/2011/06/old-fashioned-video-camera2.jpg)

Today:
(http://www.gadgetvenue.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/panasonic-3d-hd-camera.jpg)

The future:
(http://www.plunderguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/third-eye-camera.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 20, 2012, 03:34:23 PM
I think I'm done "debating" with people whose collective IQ is "potato". Man of Steel, even if we disagree you're a class act.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 03:34:56 PM
I think in done "debating" with people whose collective IQ is "potato". Man of Steel, even if we disagree you're a class act.

 ::) Okay monkey boy here's a banana for you but pick wisely:

(http://rlv.zcache.com/banana_evolution_postcard-p239589330253887503baanr_400.jpg)












































(http://www.obviouswinner.com/storage/post-images/super-banana-3.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1331302205078)

(http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/27179165/1601545)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Shockwave on September 20, 2012, 03:37:43 PM
Guess how many hours the days on other planets are? What is time? It is defined via certain referenced paramters. In our case the sun and moon play a big role in how we determine 'time'.

In islamic scholarship the understanding of the 6 days can be understood as periods and not necessarily 24 hours as per earth hours and earth days.

This is what I was speaking of. We define a day as sunrise to sunrise (on this planet). We have no idea how an entity like "God" would define it, especially since creation (be definition) happened PRIOR to humans coming into existence.

It could have been that Evolution is the path that "God" used to bring us into being, like someone making a complex drawing, taking shape over thousands of years and changing as "he/she/it" saw fit over the time period.

*Note that I am not speaking of any particular religion, but in general about the possibility that both sides are somewhat correct*


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 03:41:07 PM
In addition to the last verse:

"He it is who made the sun a shining brightness and the moon a reflected light, and ordained for it stages that you might know the computation of years and the reckoning. Allah did not create it but with truth; He makes the signs manifest for a people of understanding surah Jonas 10:5

Here is another:
“Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But God will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.”  Surah The Pilgrimage 22:47


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 20, 2012, 04:36:41 PM
Empty statements repeated by "Oh but you don't understand". Yet again!

You yourself say fossils are rare and barely complete in other words you could take any rubbish bones and imagine whatever you want and conclude AAAH this is what must have been. If your faith of darwinism was true, the earth would be LOADED with these transitional forms.

Genetics? Oh really? Besides knowing that DNA is source code on which all life is derived. There is nothing that shows that mutations add genetic material but rather distort it and destroy it. Radiation doesn't cause us to become super heroes.

You can't start with a small 'bit' of dna then magically get a whole creature with developed heart, brain, liver, arms, muscles, skeletal system, nervous system, reproductive system, male and female repsectively unique of each other. It's programmed to work in harmony COMPLETE and whole. That's why otherwise we have DEFORMITIES if something is wrong with DNA or there is DNA damage

Oh I know... it took 'hundreds of millions of yeras'. That's so damn baseless you cant begin to imagine as you try to make me 'imagine' all this. It's ludicrous

I will post some examples which basically make a ridicule of the claim that genetics 'prove' that we are evolved. More on that later.

Homology? oOoOoOh classifying bones! That proves nothing. It's like a kid given a game to make similar things stand together in order. It means nothing.

Observation? Yeah okay! If I observe what's around us it shows in the absolute OPPOSITE of any of your claims! Unless you think that seeing visually 'similar' creatures with necks means that one must have evolved from another so its neck grew over millions of years.. and one who had legs magically transformed into wings.

That's why I said xmen, spiderman, superman, wonder woman... thats what you are proposing. Fiction and imagination. Not reality.

Lol. So you use your IMAGINATION to DRAW visually representations of creatures you've NEVER SEEN or know for sure what they are. Brilliant!

How is that a PIG TOOTH becomes THIS:

(http://evolutionisntscience.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/nebraska-man-evolution-fraud.jpg?w=510)

Oh it was a 'mistake' riiight. It just shows what 'science' you employ to believe in this hocus pocus evolution theory.

Brilliant so you have an understanding of how a biological camera works. I do too. I love it, its beautiful its pretty amazing. But I dont conclude it magically evolved from some primitive cell then hundreds of milloins of years later through some unknown means VOILA evolution theory you have a whole eye that is now symmetrically a part of a human's face that sees in 3D!

And you are saying this magically just developed on its own somehow because it 'sensed' something and then POOF an eye? HMMMM strong evidence!

(http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~avery/course/3400/vision/eye_human_detail.gif)





Hmmm evolution!:

A million years ago:
(http://magazine.bikeradar.com/files/2011/06/old-fashioned-video-camera2.jpg)

Today:
(http://www.gadgetvenue.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/panasonic-3d-hd-camera.jpg)

The future:
(http://www.plunderguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/third-eye-camera.jpg)

jesus christ man, read a book. Pressure from the environment causes adaptation, I just went through a brief example of how a light sensitive cell could evolve into an eye, we see all these forms in these stages in life today. It's clear as day, nothing magical about it.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 04:42:58 PM
Yes I read books thanks for asking.

What are you talking about? Cells start seeing on their own  ::) Wow I'm impressed. COUGH lol sarcasm COUGH

Every day huh? Yeah, wait let me fetch me a microscope and observe a cell that starts seeing on its own and wait.. wait a minute... don't need that microscope, it just happened to have become an eye just like that. Thank you evolution theory.

Such wonderful facts :)

Oh and btw, I've seen this before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E

I laughed so damn hard... that he is putting together an eye in lego style and claiming 'this animal, this animal, this animal'

Such delusional deception. Evidence my ass. This is nothing but wishful conjecture and fiction.

Understanding what the eye is composed of and how it works is SCIENCE.... what you darwinist/evolution theorists suggest is bullocks.

Every time atheists try to act all superior to theists with their 'superior knowledge' I just roll my eyes and think back at the many years of back and forth denial about what evolution theory is and isn't.

In the end you think we come from monkeys i mean primates, and then what some kinda rodents/rats and whatever other bs in between then eventually sea creatures. Yeah okay  ::)

Baseless non-sense that you have codified as FACTS. Sorry.. fool someone else.

What you call as evidence is nothing but assumptions, fiction, imagination and conjecture. And to make it that much more ludicrous and unprovable you attach ridiculously large figures of millions of years, hundreds of millions of years as if such grand numbers make the lie any less true


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 20, 2012, 07:34:28 PM
The troll is strong with this one...


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 09:54:55 PM
Just enjoying tearing apart your invincible super factual super scientific super accurate fairy tale. Why? Because whenever atheists come in to 'prove' theists as 'unscientific' or believing in 'no evidence' etc... one just needs to ask them well what do you believe and take a hard look at the darwinism religion :)

(http://trollscience.com/image/f/full/83fbe3470d2d53cc1c6390fcd5c3d60d.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 21, 2012, 02:01:11 AM
such a shitty troll. Too much fucking text to be worth reading, try improving your troll with more concise points. The pictures and shit are a nice touch but are a little to much effort on your part.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 21, 2012, 08:12:22 AM
I am still waiting for these AMAZING PROOFS of evolution theory  ::) Besides promises of millions of years I see nothing

Where them super scientifico atheist spocks huh?

(http://fatkidatcamp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cant-see-shit.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 21, 2012, 09:32:54 AM
Creationists are obviously living remnants of primitive humans.

Arguing against evolution is like saying gravity doesn't exist and derives from some unknown mystical force.

How do you people explain Neanderthals? They were apparently smarter than primitive humans......did they not have a soul?

And what about cavemen? They existed way before 6000 BC....modern humans date back to about 40 000 years ago.

And how do you explain all the bones dug up by archaeologists....?

Isn't there even a corpse which was found in the Alps which dates back about 10 000 years...?

And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?

Then there's dinosaur bones..........they date back loooooong before 6000 BC.

Humans were alive in the last Ice Age.....that's over 10 000 BC.




Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 21, 2012, 11:39:32 AM
How do you people explain Neanderthals? They were apparently smarter than primitive humans......did they not have a soul?

And you have proof that they were smarter because you spoke to these supposed humans? :)

Quote
And what about cavemen? They existed way before 6000 BC....modern humans date back to about 40 000 years ago.

And yet you were not there to know jack. You speculate basd on bone fragments and fabricat tales based off your own imagination and conjecture

Just as this pig's tooth:

(http://www.creationtips.com/Pix/peccary.jpg)

Claimed to be a 'humanoid tooth' of some kind turned into these:

(http://leesbirdblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/nebraska-man.jpg)

(http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/wp-content/blogs.dir/435/files/2012/04/i-76fb151102f94d666e5ef30750ea60b9-nebman.jpg)

(http://www.creationproof.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/caveman.jpg)


Quote
And how do you explain all the bones dug up by archaeologists....?

How? They found a buncha bones? And? They draw pretty pictures. WOW

Quote
Isn't there even a corpse which was found in the Alps which dates back about 10 000 years...?

Great, so you're grave diggers too. Enlighten me.

Quote
And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?

Apparently you're not the only one interesting in drawings.

Quote
Then there's dinosaur bones..........they date back loooooong before 6000 BC.
Yes and they appeared and then died off and dissapeared. Your point?

Quote
Humans were alive in the last Ice Age.....that's over 10 000 BC.

oookay? And? Again what are you getting to? Still proves nothing on darwinism. Humans exist and that's that.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 21, 2012, 12:05:42 PM
And you have proof that they were smarter because you spoke to these supposed humans? :)

And yet you were not there to know jack. You speculate basd on bone fragments and fabricat tales based off your own imagination and conjecture

Just as this pig's tooth:

(http://www.creationtips.com/Pix/peccary.jpg)

Claimed to be a 'humanoid tooth' of some kind turned into these:

(http://leesbirdblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/nebraska-man.jpg)

(http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/wp-content/blogs.dir/435/files/2012/04/i-76fb151102f94d666e5ef30750ea60b9-nebman.jpg)

(http://www.creationproof.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/caveman.jpg)


How? They found a buncha bones? And? They draw pretty pictures. WOW

Great, so you're grave diggers too. Enlighten me.

Apparently you're not the only one interesting in drawings.
Yes and they appeared and then died off and dissapeared. Your point?

oookay? And? Again what are you getting to? Still proves nothing on darwinism. Humans exist and that's that.

To do a proper reply I'd need to write an entire thesis because there is so documented evidence on all these subjects.

But about cavemen....entire skeletons exist, not 'bone fragments', the humanoid figure you presented in one the pictures would be from millions of years back, not a mere 40 000.

Dinosaurs, mammals, reptiles and birds have all gradually changed over time over millions of years....why is that?
Bacteria, germs etc also mututate, adapt and change over time to cope with different surroundings, needs etc.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 21, 2012, 12:06:10 PM
Dude that is not even REAL it was a pig tooth. The same can be said about other 'bones' and your 'reconstructions'.

Take different artists and give them the same bones and each one will imagine what they want.

Even Dawkins 'amazing' eye evolution explanation what a farce. It's like deceitfully he understands how an eye works so he takes it apart and basically starts from reverse in bits and pieces saying well this animal, and this animal, and this animal, etc... THIS IS NOT PROOF of any kind of evolution. It's just deception and explaining how a lens/camera/eye works that's it.

And what PROOF do you have that they went from one creature to another. None. You have creatures disappearing and appearing that is the fossil record period. That's it.

You're not presenting any evidence just assumptions, conjecture and your own imaginary constructs


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 21, 2012, 12:22:10 PM
Dude that is not even REAL it was a pig tooth. The same can be said about other 'bones' and your 'reconstructions'.

Take different artists and give them the same bones and each one will imagine what they want.

Even Dawkins 'amazing' eye evolution explanation what a farce. It's like deceitfully he understands how an eye works so he takes it apart and basically starts from reverse in bits and pieces saying well this animal, and this animal, and this animal, etc... THIS IS NOT PROOF of any kind of evolution. It's just deception and explaining how a lens/camera/eye works that's it.

And what PROOF do you have that they went from one creature to another. None. You have creatures disappearing and appearing that is the fossil record period. That's it.

You're not presenting any evidence just assumptions, conjecture and your own imaginary constructs

These views are accepted by the entire scientific community, archaeologists, paleontologists, biologists etc.

The only people who refuse to believe these established facts are the minorities who who quote mystical ancient texts.

The one uses science to prove their views, the other uses an old book.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 21, 2012, 12:30:14 PM
Dude that is not even REAL it was a pig tooth. The same can be said about other 'bones' and your 'reconstructions'.

Take different artists and give them the same bones and each one will imagine what they want.

Even Dawkins 'amazing' eye evolution explanation what a farce. It's like deceitfully he understands how an eye works so he takes it apart and basically starts from reverse in bits and pieces saying well this animal, and this animal, and this animal, etc... THIS IS NOT PROOF of any kind of evolution. It's just deception and explaining how a lens/camera/eye works that's it.

And what PROOF do you have that they went from one creature to another. None. You have creatures disappearing and appearing that is the fossil record period. That's it.

You're not presenting any evidence just assumptions, conjecture and your own imaginary constructs

I don't think you understand, the only time you will see transitions as you like to call them is fully formed, why the fuck would something evolve a half eye that doesn't function? Thats retarded on so many levels. You do not understand evolution, you are trolling but you are playing the dumb creationist perfect sadly.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 21, 2012, 12:46:35 PM
Yes it is retarded. So things just went POOF? And there they were? You atheist darwinists are such a paradox.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 21, 2012, 12:47:39 PM
These views are accepted by the entire scientific community, archaeologists, paleontologists, biologists etc.

The only people who refuse to believe these established facts are the minorities who who quote mystical ancient texts.

The one uses science to prove their views, the other uses an old book.

I love it how atheists repeat that its 'accepted by all scientists'. No actually it's not. It's just that atheists are loud as shit and annoying.

Facts? Yet its a theory that can change and does change at any moment's notice. Facts like the Nebraska man? A pig's tooth and lots of drawings?

You deceive people with pretty pictures. That's all you do. And cover the tracks by citing everything in unimaginable millions of years upon millions of years. While it's mere conjecture and you cannot prove it.

(http://evolutionisntscience.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/evolutionhorse.gif?w=510)

(http://img-harunyahya.mncdn.net/Image/horse1.jpg)

(http://sepetjian.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/horse-evolution.gif)

(http://www.creationism.org/books/price/PredicmtEvol/HorseEvolutionFraud.jpg)

(http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-horse-fundamental-concepts-biology-1970.gif)

Only ignorant and naive people will fall for these kinds of deceptions


And now you don't have to resort to shitty drawings you can use the latest in computer animation to paint the deceptive illusion as more real:

(http://www.mannythemovieguy.com/images/rise_of_the_planet_of_the_apes_movie_2012_genesis_awards_humane_society.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 21, 2012, 01:57:03 PM
I love it how atheists repeat that its 'accepted by all scientists'. No actually it's not. It's just that atheists are loud as shit and annoying.

Facts? Yet its a theory that can change and does change at any moment's notice. Facts like the Nebraska man? A pig's tooth and lots of drawings?

You deceive people with pretty pictures. That's all you do. And cover the tracks by citing everything in unimaginable millions of years upon millions of years. While it's mere conjecture and you cannot prove it.

(http://evolutionisntscience.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/evolutionhorse.gif?w=510)

(http://img-harunyahya.mncdn.net/Image/horse1.jpg)

(http://sepetjian.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/horse-evolution.gif)

(http://www.creationism.org/books/price/PredicmtEvol/HorseEvolutionFraud.jpg)

(http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-horse-fundamental-concepts-biology-1970.gif)

Only ignorant and naive people will fall for these kinds of deceptions


And now you don't have to resort to shitty drawings you can use the latest in computer animation to paint the deceptive illusion as more real:

(http://www.mannythemovieguy.com/images/rise_of_the_planet_of_the_apes_movie_2012_genesis_awards_humane_society.jpg)

you are an intense troll.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 21, 2012, 02:04:52 PM
Creationists are obviously living remnants of primitive humans.

Arguing against evolution is like saying gravity doesn't exist and derives from some unknown mystical force.

How do you people explain Neanderthals? They were apparently smarter than primitive humans......did they not have a soul?

And what about cavemen? They existed way before 6000 BC....modern humans date back to about 40 000 years ago.

And how do you explain all the bones dug up by archaeologists....?

Isn't there even a corpse which was found in the Alps which dates back about 10 000 years...?

And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?

Then there's dinosaur bones..........they date back loooooong before 6000 BC.

Humans were alive in the last Ice Age.....that's over 10 000 BC.



that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life  ???  did you make that up. Well I hate to burst your bubble but your ignorance and emotions against someone that does not believe in evolution has clouded your perception, let me explain.... 7 billion people here and every single person believes in gravity yet there are over a billion people, and many smart, that believe evolution is wrong so cut the crap, your comment is childish and not intelligent at all,  :-\ :-\ :-\

Now let's get on with it without the stupid meaningless gestures   ;)

Neanderthals are pre-flood men who (because of different atmospheric conditions) were able to live longer, so certain bone features grew further then what we would see on modern man.

A date can be altered in catastrophic events. Depending on how big the event may be, in this case a world wide catastrophe, so caveman may date to 40 000 years but the dates are assuming regular and stable conditions. In an article in national geographic there where some seals that ended up dead after the result of some volcanic activity and their dead bodies yielded ages of up to 15 000 years.

''And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?'' Don't follow, what about them  ???

Dinosaurs bones are never dated, never, nor will they ever be. The age of the dinosaur bones are established based on a huge myth the geologic column that is another fraud of your great theory.

Human where around 10 000 years ago  ???  Not one single document of a King, a general, an army, a civilization, a culture, a war, a monument, a city, Nothing, zip, zero, nada. To put things in perspective there are literally 1000's of documents of culture, civilizations, wars, king, generals and even religious figures dating to 3000 bc, go back another 1000 years to 4000 bc and there is NOTHING. I think it is foolish to think humans where around without leaving a single monument, statue, a pillar, or any type of written work at all and please don't bring up Gobekli tepe.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 21, 2012, 02:16:55 PM
that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life  ???  did you make that up. Well I hate to burst your bubble but your ignorance and emotions against someone that does not believe in evolution has clouded your perception, let me explain.... 7 billion people here and every single person believes in gravity yet there are over a billion people, and many smart, that believe evolution is wrong so cut the crap, your comment is childish and not intelligent at all,  :-\ :-\ :-\

Now let's get on with it without the stupid meaningless gestures   ;)

Neanderthals are pre-flood men who (because of different atmospheric conditions) were able to live longer, so certain bone features grew further then what we would see on modern man.

A date can be altered in catastrophic events. Depending on how big the event may be, in this case a world wide catastrophe, so caveman may date to 40 000 years but the dates are assuming regular and stable conditions. In an article in national geographic there where some seals that ended up dead after the result of some volcanic activity and their dead bodies yielded ages of up to 15 000 years.

''And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?'' Don't follow, what about them  ???

Dinosaurs bones are never dated, never, nor will they ever be. The age of the dinosaur bones are established based on a huge myth the geologic column that is another fraud of your great theory.

Human where around 10 000 years ago  ???  Not one single document of a King, a general, an army, a civilization, a culture, a war, a monument, a city, Nothing, zip, zero, nada. To put things in perspective there are literally 1000's of documents of culture, civilizations, wars, king, generals and even religious figures dating to 3000 bc, go back another 1000 years to 4000 bc and there is NOTHING. I think it is foolish to think humans where around without leaving a single monument, statue, a pillar, or any type of written work at all and please don't bring up Gobekli tepe.

Jesus, are you serious or joking?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 21, 2012, 02:23:14 PM
Jesus, are you serious or joking?
Clap Clap Clap, are you retarded?  Not an insult, I really do want to know   ???  These remark of yours are based on emotions and a waste of time, so save it, control yourself bro  ;)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 21, 2012, 11:25:09 PM
Neanderthals are pre-flood men who (because of different atmospheric conditions) were able to live longer, so certain bone features grew further then what we would see on modern man.

Do you have any evidence for these extraordinary assertions?


A date can be altered in catastrophic events. Depending on how big the event may be, in this case a world wide catastrophe, so caveman may date to 40 000 years but the dates are assuming regular and stable conditions. In an article in national geographic there where some seals that ended up dead after the result of some volcanic activity and their dead bodies yielded ages of up to 15 000 years.

This is quite a statement to make with just a passing "article in <respected publication>" reference. Please provide more information. When was the article posted? What exactly did it say? That the bodies of these seals yielded incorrect dates? Under what dating methods?


''And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?'' Don't follow, what about them  ???

Dating shows some of those paintings to be over 30,000 years old.


Dinosaurs bones are never dated, never, nor will they ever be.

Never? Really? Can you provide any proof?


The age of the dinosaur bones are established based on a huge myth the geologic column that is another fraud of your great theory.

Why would scientists perpetrate this fraud? And if you know it's a fraud, can you point us to the competing scientific theory that explains the evidence that we observe and makes testable predictions? Again, the proof is in the pudding, and you only seem to be serving hot air.


Human where around 10 000 years ago  ???  Not one single document of a King, a general, an army, a civilization, a culture, a war, a monument, a city, Nothing, zip, zero, nada. To put things in perspective there are literally 1000's of documents of culture, civilizations, wars, king, generals and even religious figures dating to 3000 bc, go back another 1000 years to 4000 bc and there is NOTHING. I think it is foolish to think humans where around without leaving a single monument, statue, a pillar, or any type of written work at all and please don't bring up Gobekli tepe.

That you think something is foolish doesn't make it foolish. 10,000 is a ridiculously large timespan; documents and monuments from less than half that time are few and far between. But, if you want a counterexample to your blatantly untrue statements, I'll oblige: off the top of my head, Göbekli Tepe is around 12,000 years old.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 22, 2012, 02:37:27 AM
Thousands of articles in national geographic and all kinds of information on this bro, all kinds. Btw the dating method used was carbon dating. all kinds of situations where a recently deceased animal date to 10 000 years or older, see these dating methods are accurate but not definitive, under intense conditions can be altered, I will dig some up for you but busy for a few days, pardon my spelling trying to get used to this tablet.

What do you mean prove they dont date bones from dinosaurs, that is just dumb what you just asked, they just dont. Ask anyone, they think the bones are 65 million years old so carbon dating is not possible as it only goes back less then 100 000 years so they dont bother


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 22, 2012, 02:42:31 AM
that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life  ???  did you make that up. Well I hate to burst your bubble but your ignorance and emotions against someone that does not believe in evolution has clouded your perception, let me explain.... 7 billion people here and every single person believes in gravity yet there are over a billion people, and many smart, that believe evolution is wrong so cut the crap, your comment is childish and not intelligent at all,  :-\ :-\ :-\

Now let's get on with it without the stupid meaningless gestures   ;)

Neanderthals are pre-flood men who (because of different atmospheric conditions) were able to live longer, so certain bone features grew further then what we would see on modern man.

A date can be altered in catastrophic events. Depending on how big the event may be, in this case a world wide catastrophe, so caveman may date to 40 000 years but the dates are assuming regular and stable conditions. In an article in national geographic there where some seals that ended up dead after the result of some volcanic activity and their dead bodies yielded ages of up to 15 000 years.

''And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?'' Don't follow, what about them  ???

Dinosaurs bones are never dated, never, nor will they ever be. The age of the dinosaur bones are established based on a huge myth the geologic column that is another fraud of your great theory.

Human where around 10 000 years ago  ???  Not one single document of a King, a general, an army, a civilization, a culture, a war, a monument, a city, Nothing, zip, zero, nada. To put things in perspective there are literally 1000's of documents of culture, civilizations, wars, king, generals and even religious figures dating to 3000 bc, go back another 1000 years to 4000 bc and there is NOTHING. I think it is foolish to think humans where around without leaving a single monument, statue, a pillar, or any type of written work at all and please don't bring up Gobekli tepe.

What I'm saying is not 'ignorant', my views are backed by almost all scientists, archaeologists, paleontologists, biologists and even astronomers who are experts in their fields and devote their life to studying these issues.

The gravity analogy is valid in my view, the reason why anyone would argue against the evidence is if they had an ulterior motive such as backing up a religious text.

The majority of the worlds population live in poverty, are poorly educated and often live according to religious traditions.
It is doubtful whether evolution has ever even been brought to their attention.

With regards to the dinosaurs, they are often 50-100 million years old or possibly more and this corresponds with the surrounding layers of earth they're discovered in. The layers of earth are even often visible to eye if viewed in a cut-section.
There's also fossils of ancient plants, trees, shells etc.

How does one then explain the fossilization process...? The bones are fused within the rock.

You can't possibly be implying that dinosaur bones are relatively modern...?
I know there is a Creationist Theme Park in America which shows models of humans together with animatronic dinosaurs.

About documents surviving....well I doubt the cavemen would have been drawing up the Magna Carta or other important documents. That's why they painted pictures on the cavewalls which we can still see today and dated beyond 10 000 BC.
These exist. As well as stone tools and their bones.

If they did not have civilization or even the wheel then they wouldn't have been able to write.
Look at the blacks in Africa before Europeans arrived...?
None of anything they had would have survived besides a few spear or arrow tips. They lived in wooden huts and passed on their history via oral tradition. They didn't even have the wheel.
If they had all died out, then what would be left of them a few thousand years later....or 10, or 20, 30, 40 000 years?

Gobekli Tepe dates are also accepted by mainstream archaeologists so it is a valid example.

And back to the Neanderthals the mainstream view is now also that they lived side by side and competed with humans.

The only motivation to argue against evolution is because religious texts state that man was created approximately 6000 years ago.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 22, 2012, 05:22:13 AM
Thousands of articles in national geographic and all kinds of information on this bro, all kinds. Btw the dating method used was carbon dating. all kinds of situations where a recently deceased animal date to 10 000 years or older, see these dating methods are accurate but not definitive, under intense conditions can be altered, I will dig some up for you but busy for a few days, pardon my spelling trying to get used to this tablet.

What do you mean prove they dont date bones from dinosaurs, that is just dumb what you just asked, they just dont. Ask anyone, they think the bones are 65 million years old so carbon dating is not possible as it only goes back less then 100 000 years so they dont bother

ya cus carbon dating is the only method. Listen, you have your reasons to believe the way you do, it's part of you. I don't give a fuck if we evolved, grew out of mud, out my moms ass etc. what difference does it make to me, I simply look at the evidence and make my conclusion. You on the other hand deny evolution, and for good reason, it conflicts with your storybook.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on September 22, 2012, 05:46:50 AM
HA HA Bible bashers are crazy!  I love this dude - No HOMO  ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-9uJrotC4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9gFNwC8Qp4


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 22, 2012, 08:09:16 AM
Thousands of articles in national geographic and all kinds of information on this bro, all kinds. Btw the dating method used was carbon dating. all kinds of situations where a recently deceased animal date to 10 000 years or older, see these dating methods are accurate but not definitive, under intense conditions can be altered, I will dig some up for you but busy for a few days, pardon my spelling trying to get used to this tablet.

What do you mean prove they dont date bones from dinosaurs, that is just dumb what you just asked, they just dont. Ask anyone, they think the bones are 65 million years old so carbon dating is not possible as it only goes back less then 100 000 years so they dont bother

Other radiometric dating methods are available... And sorry "it's been published many times before bro lol!" isn't evidence of anything. You made an extraordinary claim - you should provide evidence to support it.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 22, 2012, 08:30:28 AM
You atheists are making extraordinary fairy tale claims all the time. I find your lack of evidence disturbing

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_blGfuJqvbMU/So3oblX1oxI/AAAAAAAACOQ/0WK3RVAoCHQ/s320/yodafail.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Donny on September 22, 2012, 10:13:16 AM
The most primitive race is the "RADICAL" Muslim


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Donny on September 22, 2012, 10:21:44 AM
 Brothers


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 22, 2012, 11:47:22 AM
Other radiometric dating methods are available... And sorry "it's been published many times before bro lol!" isn't evidence of anything. You made an extraordinary claim - you should provide evidence to support it.
and i told you I will bro, relax bro
ya cus carbon dating is the only method. Listen, you have your reasons to believe the way you do, it's part of you. I don't give a fuck if we evolved, grew out of mud, out my moms ass etc. what difference does it make to me, I simply look at the evidence and make my conclusion. You on the other hand deny evolution, and for good reason, it conflicts with your storybook.

I thought I told you to control yourself, lol.  Look brother you look at the evidence from a different perspective then I do, I dont care what the Bible says or my beliefs.  I study history and as a historian I can not accept evolution as thousands of cultures, nations and traditions seem to be pointing to one origin  and I have studied extensively the armies of 3000 bc and have watched them grow from 5000 men to 200 000 000 men in less then 5000 years, and I laugh at you guys that think men have been around for 100s of thousands of years, it,s a complete joke to all the history I have read, every piece of history from The Babylonians to the Romans indicate men have no been around long, do you see me calling you guys name, these are valid arguments bro, dont be so con fident in your theory cause it may be replaced by yet another fairytale in the future

Damn it I hate typing on these tablets, I am going to break this thing,  lol.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 23, 2012, 01:46:22 PM
I watched a BBC documentary tonight called the History of the World.

It stated that 'modern' humans date back 70 000 years and that there are cave paintings in Europe that date to 17 000 BC.
There was also a carved needle from 12 000 BC.

Also that Neanderthals lived and competed with humans for about 5000 - 10 000 years.

And that farming started 12 000 years ago, before that humans were hunter gatherers.

Interestingly, according to unearthed skeletons it seems that farm life was unhealthier than being a nomadic hunter-gather. The hard farm-work caused arthritis, tooth decay started for the time due to starchy food and humans became slightly smaller.

It also stated the last ice age was over 12 000 years ago and this allowed humans to cross over to America.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 23, 2012, 01:53:26 PM
I watched a BBC documentary tonight called the History of the World.

It stated that 'modern' humans date back 70 000 years and that there are cave paintings in Europe that date to 17 000 BC.
There was also a carved needle from 12 000 BC.

Also that Neanderthals lived and competed with humans for about 5000 - 10 000 years.

And that farming started 12 000 years ago, before that humans were hunter gatherers.

Interestingly, according to unearthed skeletons it seems that farm life was unhealthier than being a nomadic hunter-gather. The hard farm-work caused arthritis, tooth decay started for the time due to starchy food and humans became slightly smaller.

It also stated the last ice age was over 12 000 years ago and this allowed humans to cross over to America.
And I have seen billions of shows like that too. Who hasn't, everything is claimed to be of old date, EVERYTHING.  Tell me Einstein how do you date a piece of rock in a cave?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 24, 2012, 02:33:59 AM
And I have seen billions of shows like that too. Who hasn't, everything is claimed to be of old date, EVERYTHING.  Tell me Einstein how do you date a piece of rock in a cave?

That's not my area of expertise but the world's experts (archaeologists, geologists, anthropologists, paleontologists etc.)  seem to agree on those dates.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 24, 2012, 07:13:55 AM
And I have seen billions of shows like that too. Who hasn't, everything is claimed to be of old date, EVERYTHING.  Tell me Einstein how do you date a piece of rock in a cave?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

here go learn something.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 07:34:09 AM
So, could radiation from all western countries' nuclear weapon testing affect results of findings  :D How about the israeli/us Stuxnet attacking siemens controllers in japan?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 03:18:02 PM
And I have seen billions of shows like that too. Who hasn't, everything is claimed to be of old date, EVERYTHING.  Tell me Einstein how do you date a piece of rock in a cave?

Wow... just wow.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 03:47:55 PM
Wow... just wow.
wow you guys are brainless, just wow, you know I know this, read the post I was responding to. Griffith was talking about a cave with drawings, that is what I was referring to, Mr. wow just wow, who thinks I don't know about radio metric dating, DUH  ::)...... Ignorance I tell you. The cave has been there since the beginning of time Einstein so there is no way of measuring the date of when someone drew something brainiac, there you go eat your words, I don't normally get mad but your stupid comment made you look dumb, not me.  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(  ;D  8)    :P  wow just wow


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 03:50:23 PM
avxo only has the ability to quote each word in quotes and then respond with cynical, sarcastic, self-glorifying superiority commentary that benefits absolutely no one. He is quite fond of his deception and lying by any means.

It seems he will 'tear apart' anyone's arguments about being 'no evidence' (whatever you are discussing he'll conjecture up evidences from his ass for whatever he claims). But when it comes to others truly tearing apart his arguments then first he is insecurely in denial saying that only he knows what he's talking about and his lackeys, and that everyone else knows nothing and is uneducated, unscientific. Blabla.

Then when he has nothing more to say in his defense (or sarcasm/cynicism) he resorts oh wow oh wow.

I'm very dissapointed. In real life I certainly would not share a minute of my time with such an individual


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 04:04:05 PM
avxo only has the ability to quote each word in quotes and then respond with cynical, sarcastic, self-glorifying superiority commentary that benefits absolutely no one. He is quite fond of his deception and lying by any means.

It seems he will 'tear apart' anyone's arguments about being 'no evidence' (whatever you are discussing he'll conjecture up evidences from his ass for whatever he claims). But when it comes to others truly tearing apart his arguments then first he is insecurely in denial saying that only he knows what he's talking about and his lackeys, and that everyone else knows nothing and is uneducated, unscientific. Blabla.

Then when he has nothing more to say in his defense (or sarcasm/cynicism) he resorts oh wow oh wow.

I'm very dissapointed. In real life I certainly would not share a minute of my time with such an individual
all he says to refute everything is prove it, and ''you don't know what you are talking about'' then throws some fancy term in there, zero debate from his end. Then he will claim that whatever you say was not proof. It is predictable, his response that is. He claims the theory of evolution is proven, lol haha,... then he claims it is possible that it could be replaced, well then it isn't proven, lol... but then he will say proof means something else, funny guy.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 04:05:55 PM
wow you guys are brainless, just wow, you know I know this, read the post I was responding to. Griffith was talking about a cave with drawings, that is what I was referring to, Mr. wow just wow, who thinks I don't know about radio metric dating, DUH  ::)...... Ignorance I tell you. The cave has been there since the beginning of time Einstein so there is no way of measuring the date of when someone drew something brainiac, there you go eat your words, I don't normally get mad but your stupid comment made you look dumb, not me.  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(  ;D  8)    :P  wow just wow

You can date the pigment used to color the color, however.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 04:12:36 PM
You can date the pigment used to color the color, however.
No you can't, wow just wow how the tables turn, now it is my turn to say "you don't know what you are talking about" lol and "learn something"

haha you lose, radiometric dating require something of a minium weight and it has to be material,  lol now that's funny as hell "they can date the cave drawings cmon now avxo I expected more from you, I guess you forgot to google that one  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 04:13:55 PM
Yeah I've seen it in my other threads. He came uninvited, I had no intention of dweling on atheist matters personally but he came in to mock and ridicule a few religious threads. Then when I'm like okay lets talk, his 'talks' are merely cynicism, sarcasm, ridicule and 'this is not evidence' and 'you dont know anything' in circular fashion covered in deception, misinformation and lying... he's nothing but a fraud.

He has some issues that he has to quote each sentence and write ten paragraphs in response. Kind of hard to respond to this guy as a result and then he thinks he is superior in knowledge. Self glorifying fool as far as I'm concerned.

Not to mention he's an intellectually dishonest guy. Whenever he tries to 'slander' Islam and muslims he is not talking from islam he is talking of bs hearsay stereotypes and news. And when he TRIES to quote the quran he obviously does so out of context. He has never read the qur'an.

It's just futile to talk to him about ANYTHING at all


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 04:15:14 PM
avxo only has the ability to quote each word in quotes and then respond with cynical, sarcastic, self-glorifying superiority commentary that benefits absolutely no one. He is quite fond of his deception and lying by any means.

The reason why I quote things as I do is because I want to address specific points being made, and I feel it's helpful to show the context. If you don't like my style, that's too bad.


It seems he will 'tear apart' anyone's arguments about being 'no evidence' (whatever you are discussing he'll conjecture up evidences from his ass for whatever he claims). But when it comes to others truly tearing apart his arguments then first he is insecurely in denial saying that only he knows what he's talking about and his lackeys, and that everyone else knows nothing and is uneducated, unscientific. Blabla.

Please present one instance of me 'conjecturing' evidence that I have not properly sourced, and I will do so. As for 'others truly tearing apart' my arguments, I don't think you've achieved that and if you did I would have no problem admitting the flaws in my argument. The problem is that what you do is hand-wave away anything you don't agree with and outright dismiss it. You do this because you believe you have a monopoly on some divinely revealed truth and attack anything contrary to that "truth" as a lie without once engaging your rational faculty.


Then when he has nothing more to say in his defense (or sarcasm/cynicism) he resorts oh wow oh wow.

What reaction should I have had to the obviously sarcastic question "Tell me Einstein how do you date a piece of rock in a cave?" that is ridiculous on its face, especially when we are in the middle of a discussion involving the use of radiometric dating methods?


I'm very dissapointed. In real life I certainly would not share a minute of my time with such an individual

But in online life you can't stay away from me :)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 04:19:14 PM
hahahhhahahaha he did it again


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 04:23:36 PM
No you can't, wow just wow how the tables turn, now it is my turn to say "you don't know what you are talking about" lol and "learn something"

haha you lose, radiometric dating require something of a minium weight and it has to be material,  lol now that's funny as hell "they can date the cave drawings cmon now avxo I expected more from you, I guess you forgot to google that one  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\

So the pigment isn't a material that you can scrape off the rock and date?

Yeah I've seen it in my other threads. He came uninvited, I had no intention of dweling on atheist matters personally but he came in to mock and ridicule a few religious threads. Then when I'm like okay lets talk, his 'talks' are merely cynicism, sarcasm, ridicule and 'this is not evidence' and 'you dont know anything' in circular fashion covered in deception, misinformation and lying... he's nothing but a fraud.

It's an open forum that anyone can post on. No invitation is required...


He has some issues that he has to quote each sentence and write ten paragraphs in response. Kind of hard to respond to this guy as a result and then he thinks he is superior in knowledge. Self glorifying fool as far as I'm concerned.

If I am a self-glorifying fool what does that make you, in answering me? Especially since you've figured out my "devious plan" to quote my opponents to submission?


Not to mention he's an intellectually dishonest guy. Whenever he tries to 'slander' Islam and muslims he is not talking from islam he is talking of bs hearsay stereotypes and news. And when he TRIES to quote the quran he obviously does so out of context. He has never read the qur'an.

Yes... absolutely. It's all hearsay and made up stuff. The Taliban didn't require that women cover their face and hair. Iran doesn't require it. A Pakistani minister didn't announce a $100,000 bounty for a murder. Khomeini didn't issue a fatwa against Rushdie. ::)
 

It's just futile to talk to him about ANYTHING at all

So why do you continue to answer me?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 04:30:41 PM
"As for 'others truly tearing apart' my arguments, I don't think you've achieved that and if you did I would have no problem admitting the flaws in my argument."

Good then admit that you were wrong when you said that they can date the pigment of what was used to draw.


Now you asked for proof that Carbon dating can be altered through certain events that give off enormous amounts of carbon to the atmosphere such as volcanoes.

THANKS NECROSIS FOR THE WIKI LINK, HERE IS A PARAGRAPGH FROM YOUR LINK  ;) ;) ;) ;)

The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates.

Now admit you were wrong again axvo and believe me 200 example of every single dating method having wacky numbers are coming your way bro. So I don't want to hear oh well they dated this to 15000 years in your argument again as we just confirmed that dates can be inaccurate


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 04:31:51 PM
look at him gooo


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 04:32:15 PM
''So the pigment isn't a material that you can scrape off the rock and date?''

No it is not big enough, it has to be solid, wow you really don't know anything on this subject do you?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 04:38:33 PM
OWNED


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 24, 2012, 04:46:20 PM
OWNED
Who, you?

You get owned on every thread.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 04:47:11 PM
OWNED
8) I would say and let's see if he would admit he was wrong


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 04:50:35 PM
''So the pigment isn't a material that you can scrape off the rock and date?''

No it is not big enough, it has to be solid, wow you really don't know anything on this subject do you?

Wrong. It doesn't have to be solid. Read about Isochron dating. Wikipedia explicitly (and conveniently) states "To perform dating, a rock is crushed to a fine powder and minerals are separated by various physical and magnetic means. Each mineral has different ratios between parent and daughter concentrations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Skeletor on September 24, 2012, 04:58:40 PM
Who, you?

You get owned on every thread.


LOL


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 05:01:49 PM
Wrong. It doesn't have to be solid. Read about Isochron dating. Wikipedia explicitly (and conveniently) states "To perform dating, a rock is crushed to a fine powder and minerals are separated by various physical and magnetic means. Each mineral has different ratios between parent and daughter concentrations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating
You just don't get it do you. Unbelievable how stubborn you can be. Listen carefully bro. I have been debating this for 15 years and I have learned a few things along the way. 1 is no one on the planet dates dinosaur bones, they just don't, ask any professor and ask any archaeologist and they will tell you this, not hard to understand any archaeologist who finds a dinosaur bone will not conduct any radio metric dating on it, in fact everyone in this field knows this, EVERYONE.

 2 is they do not conduct radio metric dating on cave drawings, they simply don't, so get over yourself for 5 seconds and accept this. Dating things cost a lot of money and they tend to use it conservatively so it is a custom to not date dinosaur bones and cave drawings and I mean NEVER, now go google this as you always do and see for yourself, woooooooooooooooooooooos h


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Skeletor on September 24, 2012, 05:05:20 PM
I have been debating this for 15 years and I have learned a few things along the way.

You have been debating radio metric dating for 15 years?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 05:18:55 PM
You have been debating radio metric dating for 15 years?
No, I have no beef with radio metric dating, scroll up this page and find the wikipedia link and I agree with everything it says. What I meant is I have been debating along the lines of these subjects long enough to know that no archaeologist on the planet has ever nor will ever radio metric date a dinosaur bone.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 05:21:42 PM
Now you asked for proof that Carbon dating can be altered through certain events that give off enormous amounts of carbon to the atmosphere such as volcanoes.

Actually, I asked for proof about your specific example about the seals but a general case example will do fine.


THANKS NECROSIS FOR THE WIKI LINK, HERE IS A PARAGRAPGH FROM YOUR LINK  ;) ;) ;) ;)

The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates.

Interesting. I didn't know about the effects of volcanoes and excess carbon dioxide, although in retrospect it's reasonable. But I will add that 14C dating techniques that account for reservoir correction techniques can easily deal with this sort of thing, but obviously no correction is 100% perfect. None of this inherently makes 14C unreliable or problematic in the way that you have previously suggested though.


Now admit you were wrong again axvo and believe me 200 example of every single dating method having wacky numbers are coming your way bro. So I don't want to hear oh well they dated this to 15000 years in your argument again as we just confirmed that dates can be inaccurate

I learned something new. However, I wouldn't say I was wrong, since I never said that the scenario you described was impossible. I asked you to back it up instead of just saying "I once read in an article" which is about as good as "my grandfather's neighbor had a cousin that once heard..." It's ironic that you only did after Necrosis posted the link.

I would be interested in seeing examples of "wacky" Sm-Nd or Ur-Pb dating results, out of personal curiosity.


You just don't get it do you. Unbelievable how stubborn you can be. Listen carefully bro. I have been debating this for 15 years and I have learned a few things along the way. 1 is no one on the planet dates dinosaur bones, they just don't, ask any professor and ask any archaeologist and they will tell you this, not hard to understand any archaeologist who finds a dinosaur bone will not conduct any radio metric dating on it, in fact everyone in this field knows this, EVERYONE.

The number of years you've been debating something doesn't necessarily make you an authority. But let's assume, arguendo, that they aren't dated. The fact that they've these bones have been found below the K-T boundary strongly hints at their age. Of course, I'm sure you'll now challenge the dating of the K-T boundary too...


2 is they do not conduct radio metric dating on cave drawings, they simply don't, so get over yourself for 5 seconds and accept this. Dating things cost a lot of money and they tend to use it conservatively so it is a custom to not date dinosaur bones and cave drawings and I mean NEVER, now go google this as you always do and see for yourself, woooooooooooooooooooooos h


Right... ::) We can't waste money on this sort of nonsense. It's way too expensive! Why, last I checked at http://paleoresearch.com/services/14C.html it costs $500 a pop! That's like more expensive than a test-tube! And a test tube is reusable! We aren't made of money! Besides, that's like... 100 Frappuccinos at Starbucks! Why do science when you can sip delicious ice coffee?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 05:24:06 PM
No, I have no beef with radio metric dating, scroll up this page and find the wikipedia link and I agree with everything it says. What I meant is I have been debating along the lines of these subjects long enough to know that no archaeologist on the planet has ever nor will ever radio metric date a dinosaur bone.

Perhaps 15 years isn't quite enough debating... In 2011 Fassett et al. published their paper on Uranium-Lead radiometric dating of fossilized dinosaur bones. Find out more at http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/39/2/159.abstract


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 24, 2012, 05:25:38 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 05:44:38 PM
Actually, I asked for proof about your specific example about the seals but a general case example will do fine.


Interesting. I didn't know about the effects of volcanoes and excess carbon dioxide, although in retrospect it's reasonable. But I will add that 14C dating techniques that account for reservoir correction techniques can easily deal with this sort of thing, but obviously no correction is 100% perfect. None of this inherently makes 14C unreliable or problematic in the way that you have previously suggested though.


I learned something new. However, I wouldn't say I was wrong, since I never said that the scenario you described was impossible. I asked you to back it up instead of just saying "I once read in an article" which is about as good as "my grandfather's neighbor had a cousin that once heard..." It's ironic that you only did after Necrosis posted the link.

I would be interested in seeing examples of "wacky" Sm-Nd or Ur-Pb dating results, out of personal curiosity.


The number of years you've been debating something doesn't necessarily make you an authority. But let's assume, arguendo, that they aren't dated. The fact that they've these bones have been found below the K-T boundary strongly hints at their age. Of course, I'm sure you'll now challenge the dating of the K-T boundary too...



Right... ::) We can't waste money on this sort of nonsense. It's way too expensive! Why, last I checked at http://paleoresearch.com/services/14C.html it costs $500 a pop! That's like more expensive than a test-tube! And a test tube is reusable! We aren't made of money! Besides, that's like... 100 Frappuccinos at Starbucks! Why do science when you can sip delicious ice coffee?
You are missing the point completely, there is certain things they don't radio metric date and that's the bottom line.


"None of this inherently makes 14C unreliable or problematic in the way that you have previously suggested though."

Ahh, but it does, you see if the atmospheric pressure in the pre-flood era was drastically different then what we have today the % of carbon in our atmosphere would have been way higher, furthermore if you have a different pressure you have a different decay rate.


The number of years you've been debating something doesn't necessarily make you an authority.

Of course not, but my point was that they don't use radio metric dating on cave drawings and dinosaur bones and in 15 years I have only learned this a billion times


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 05:53:07 PM
You are missing the point completely, there is certain things they don't radio metric date and that's the bottom line.

Like powder? Which you claimed you can't date? In 15 years nobody told you about isochron dating?


"None of this inherently makes 14C unreliable or problematic in the way that you have previously suggested though."

Ahh, but it does, you see if the atmospheric pressure in the pre-flood era was drastically different then what we have today the % of carbon in our atmosphere would have been way higher, furthermore if you have a different pressure you have a different decay rate.

You realize that is what reservoir corrections and calibration are for, right? Haven't those techniques come up during your debates? And do you have any evidence about the difference in atmospheric pressures?


The number of years you've been debating something doesn't necessarily make you an authority.

Of course not, but my point was that they don't use radio metric dating on cave drawings and dinosaur bones and in 15 years I have only learned this a billion times

First you claim you can't radio-date scraped pigment. I provide a link to isochron dating. Then you claim that they don't date because it's expensive. I provide you a link to very low and very reasonable prices. Then you say nobody dates dinosaur bones. I provide you with a link to a published paper in a peer-reviewed journal about U-Pb dating of dinosaur bones.

Apparently what you've learned 15 billion times isn't accurate. For future reference, you may want to consider doing your learning at an accredited institution of higher education.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 07:13:49 PM
Did anyone ever tell you that you're annoying and a fraud?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 24, 2012, 07:16:42 PM
Did anyone ever tell you that you're annoying and a fraud?
All of your arguments have been destroyed.

You are relying on tradition to guide your life, and all evidence, no matter how sound, you dismiss in that aim.

YOU are the fraud.

It's grow up time and you're late.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 07:26:18 PM
You haven't defeated anything. I just stopped responding to an individual who is a fraud and who can't seem to have a discussion without having saracasm in every one of his one thousand quotations. Waste of my screen space.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 24, 2012, 07:55:51 PM
You haven't defeated anything. I just stopped responding to an individual who is a fraud and who can't seem to have a discussion without having saracasm in every one of his one thousand quotations. Waste of my screen space.
Log off.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 08:03:06 PM
Like powder? Which you claimed you can't date? In 15 years nobody told you about isochron dating?


You realize that is what reservoir corrections and calibration are for, right? Haven't those techniques come up during your debates? And do you have any evidence about the difference in atmospheric pressures?


First you claim you can't radio-date scraped pigment. I provide a link to isochron dating. Then you claim that they don't date because it's expensive. I provide you a link to very low and very reasonable prices. Then you say nobody dates dinosaur bones. I provide you with a link to a published paper in a peer-reviewed journal about U-Pb dating of dinosaur bones.

Apparently what you've learned 15 billion times isn't accurate. For future reference, you may want to consider doing your learning at an accredited institution of higher education.
why are you lying? why?..., You did not prove that they an date the pigment of the drawings and to think they can shows how little you know. read below../

Isochron dating is useful in the determination of the age of igneous rocks, which have their initial origin in the cooling of liquid magma. It is also useful to determine the time of metamorphism, shock events (such as the consequence of an asteroid impact) and other events depending of the behaviour of the particular isotopic systems under such events.


^^^^^ you see from your link, so stop making up lies, that is far from being able to date some writing on a rock.

Lie number 2 proving that archaeology have money to throw away, ya OK 500 dollars on a simple date when they have over 100 different artifacts and findings to date is an insane amount of money when the are on a limited bugdet, so you proved me right, not wrong, you are really exposing yourself on how very little you know in these areas.

Good day and stop lying. Isochron dating to date some marking on cave wall? hahahahhah that is halirious, lol  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[


Oh and another lie, saying they date the dinosaur bones. The way they date them is to categorize them into their mythological column, that's it that is how they come up with the dates. You are so funny, I thought you where freaking smart bro but recently you have exposed yourself now I know for sure you just front and google everything cause damn some of the stuff your getting wrong is pathetic, especially not knowing that archaeologist never use a radio metric method to date dinosaur bones. Try sending a dinosaur bone to any radio metric testing facility and they will send you the bone back and say it's policy that we can NOT date these bones cause they are dinosaur bones.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Stefano on September 24, 2012, 08:17:48 PM
You haven't defeated anything. I just stopped responding to an individual who is a fraud and who can't seem to have a discussion without having saracasm in every one of his one thousand quotations. Waste of my screen space.


Typical of someone who cowers when his make believe world gets demolished in front of his eyes. Your pathetic threads are a waste of getbig space. I suppose you've never used sarcasm in your posts right taliban boy? I read someof your past posts and it seems though you're a drug addict who injects himself with various drug cocktails to get big. LOL.  What a pious life you lead.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 08:25:27 PM

Typical of someone who cowers when his make believe world gets demolished in front of his eyes. Your pathetic threads are a waste of getbig space. I suppose you've never used sarcasm in your posts right taliban boy? I read someof your past posts and it seems though you're a drug addict who injects himself with various drug cocktails to get big. LOL.  What a pious life you lead.


bro you said nothing meaningful and if your so against people injecting you are in the wrong place, 75 % of getbig inject.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Stefano on September 24, 2012, 08:37:54 PM
bro you said nothing meaningful and if your so against people injecting you are in the wrong place, 75 % of getbig inject.

Im not against people injecting themselves but this guy has thris holier than thou attitude and seems to be only here to assert that his religion is better and attack christianity and the west. He goes on about muslims leading clean lives when in reality they are no better than the rest of the world.

He also claims that he is a former christian and white. I think that is a lie. He's muslim since birth and just pretends to be white as if that will add more weight to his arguements


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 08:44:27 PM
Im not against people injecting themselves but this guy has thris holier than thou attitude and seems to be only here to assert that his religion is better and attack christianity and the west. He goes on about muslims leading clean lives when in reality they are no better than the rest of the world.

He also claims that he is a former christian and white. I think that is a lie. He's muslim since birth and just pretends to be white as if that will add more weight to his arguements
Oh, I see


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Stefano on September 24, 2012, 08:48:27 PM
Oh, I see

In one thread he claims muslims are tolerant and accept other faiths and yet in another thread he sees nothing wrong with the destruction of buddhist statues simply becuase it was done by muslims and muslims can do no wrong. ::).

Typical shut in...blames the west for everything despite living in a western country.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 09:01:40 PM
why are you lying? why?..., You did not prove that they an date the pigment of the drawings and to think they can shows how little you know. read below../

According to wikipedia, we know that "based on radiocarbon dating of 'black [pigment] from drawings, from torch marks and from the floors' [...] the dates fall into two groups, one centred around 27,000 - 26,000 BP and the other around 32,000 - 30,000 BP." So clearly they are able to extract and date the pigment used to make those paintings. So even if I wasn't confident in my knowledge that such dating was possible, you will forgive me for not buying your hysterical screams that this is impossible especially when presented with evidence that this has actually been done by scientists who have published results that have stood up to peer-review and scrutiny.


Isochron dating is useful in the determination of the age of igneous rocks, which have their initial origin in the cooling of liquid magma. It is also useful to determine the time of metamorphism, shock events (such as the consequence of an asteroid impact) and other events depending of the behaviour of the particular isotopic systems under such events.


It's useful yes, because for things like meteorites because using it "no assumptions are needed about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence." A useful property for rocks of extraterrestrial origin. But that's not it's only application and the isochron methodology, especially using Rubidium-Strontium dating is widely used and very accurate on systems that are closed to those elements since their formation.


^^^^^ you see from your link, so stop making up lies, that is far from being able to date some writing on a rock.

All I see from the link is that isochron methodologies are especially useful in certain situation when non-isochron dating attempts could not be utilized..


Lie number 2 proving that archaeology have money to throw away, ya OK 500 dollars on a simple date when they have over 100 different artifacts and findings to date is an insane amount of money when the are on a limited bugdet, so you proved me right, not wrong, you are really exposing yourself on how very little you know in these areas.

I wasn't aiming to prove that archeologists have money to throw away. You asserted that nobody dates bones because it's expensive. In less than 5 minutes I found a service that allows one to date anything for a price of $500 which isn't expensive at all. I'm sure that bulk pricing would be even cheaper, and frankly the equipment necessary to perform 14C dating is almost certainly present at most State Universities and would be readily be made available for a small fee for research purposes; perhaps even free.


Good day and stop lying. Isochron dating to date some marking on cave wall? hahahahhah that is halirious, lol  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

Considering that you didn't even know about isochron dating until I pointed it out to you and that you probably cannot explain the methodology or the science behind it, I don't think that your little laugh-fest is appropriate. But whatever. You may want to reconsider your view since scientists have, as I showed you above, actually dated the paintings at Chauvet cave using such techniques.


Oh and another lie, saying they date the dinosaur bones. The way they date them is to categorize them into their mythological column, that's it that is how they come up with the dates. You are so funny, I thought you where freaking smart bro but recently you have exposed yourself now I know for sure you just front and google everything cause damn some of the stuff your getting wrong is pathetic, especially not knowing that archaeologist never use a radio metric method to date dinosaur bones. Try sending a dinosaur bone to any radio metric testing facility and they will send you the bone back and say it's policy that we can NOT date these bones cause they are dinosaur bones.

Well, considering that I posted a link to an actual article published in 2011  in a peer-reviewed journal, detailing how Uranium-Lead dating techniques were applied on actual dinosaur bones and tabulate their results and how they compare with the dating derived from the K-T boundary dating method. Meanwhile you continue insisting that not only are bones not dated but you raise the states and assert that they actually cannot be.

So on the one hand I have articles from scientists published in peer review journals that show that dinosaur bones can and have been dated and on the other hand I have a crackpot on the Internet who makes assertions that contradict said scientists and evidence and backs them up with the "few things" he learned "debating this for 15 years."


bro [...] if your so against people injecting you are in the wrong place, 75 % of getbig inject.

Hahaha... that was an excellent double entendre. ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 09:28:29 PM
You have made a few grammar and spelling mistakes yourself stud  ;)
Just the other day I saw one and was going to mock you but decided not to scoop to your level   ;)

bro research shows everything you can possibly think of, does not make it true and the research you provided does not say what you are saying and it is vague. I can also show you scientific research that states steroids does not build muscle. Biased, full of assumptions. Let`s pretend you are right for a second, still doesn`t change the fact that when archaeologist find cave drawings and dinosaur bones they don`t use these methods. If you found an example of someone that did, it is a horrible lie and even if it was not, it would represent 0.00001 % of the findings cause it is not a practice of the archaeologist. I know of one time that a dinosaur bone was carbon dated and guess what the test result said, lmao, it said 30 000 years. You see that`s why they don`t do it cause it will expose their mythological column.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 09:47:48 PM
You have made a few grammar and spelling mistakes yourself stud  ;)
Just the other day I saw one and was going to mock you but decided not to scoop to your level   ;)

Was that aimed at me? I don't think I've ever called out anyone for bad grammar or bad spelling. As for mistakes, I've never claimed to have perfect spelling or perfect grammar and I'm sure I make my share of them although I actively try to avoid making any.

Oh by the way - just for shits and giggles... it's stoop not scoop.  ;D



bro research shows everything you can possibly think of, does not make it true and the research you provided does not say what you are saying and it is vague.

Can you be more specific? How exactly does it not say what I claim it says? The article very clearly states that they applied Uranium-Lead dating to dinosaur bones and came up with dates that were consistent with the dates that were derived from using K-T boundary layer dating techniques.


I can also show you scientific research that states steroids does not build muscle. Biased, full of assumptions.

I'd be interested to see this "scientific" research. Can you show me?


Let`s pretend you are right for a second, still doesn`t change the fact that when archaeologist find cave drawings and dinosaur bones they don`t use these methods.

It doesn't prove that they do it in every occasion - and they don't have to. But it proves that they can and do do it on some occasions.


If you found an example of someone that did, it is a horrible lie

In other words your position is: "If someone says something that goes against what my beliefs are or contradicts what I say, then that person is ipso facto a liar!" :o


and even if it was not, it would represent 0.00001 % of the findings cause it is not a practice of the archaeologist.

0.00001%? Really? Damn. That changes everything. I had assumed it was only 0.0001%...


I know of one time that a dinosaur bone was carbon dated and guess what the test result said, lmao, it said 30 000 years. You see that`s why they don`t do it cause it will expose their mythological column.

I'm sure that the third cousin of your uncle's neighbor who heard this story from a friend is very reliable source and relayed it to you accurately and correctly, but just for the record, could we perhaps know some more details? It's not that I don't believe you... I just don't believe you ;D

But in all seriousness, you are asserting that there exists a global conspiracy, involving hundreds of thousands of scientists of all ages, nationalities and affiliations, with diverse backgrounds, educations and personal beliefs. What possible motive could they all have to weave such a complex conspiracy to support a lie that, ultimately, doesn't benefit them in the slightest?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 09:56:58 PM
actually here in Canada we say scoop  :D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 10:02:41 PM
actually here in Canada we say scoop  :D

Canadians... *shakes head*  ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 10:06:55 PM
Regrettably, the medical and scientific community has historically been less than truthful in presenting information about anabolic steroids to the general public. For example, for many years their position was that steroids do not build muscle. (For an interesting examination of how study results were engineered to show that steroids do not work through the use of intentionally flawed designs, see, Taylor, 1982, pp. 16-19.) Even as late as 1984, in the highly publicized anti-steroid book Death in the Locker Room: Steroids & Sports (Goldman, 1984), then-medical student Bob Goldman seriously presented his theory about how steroids work in a subchapter devoted to the "placebo effect." It is unclear whether such faulty opinions were based upon ignorance of the overwhelming anecdotal evidence or upon an attempt to protect the public by concealing the truth. Whatever the reason, "[t]he medical community lost much credibility as a result of repeated denials that [steroids] enhance performance" (Yesalis, Kennedy, et al., 1993, p. 1217). Of course, the athletes themselves knew decades earlier about the dramatic effects of anabolics on sports performance and appearance.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 10:16:42 PM
Cool, thanks. I'll have to pull some of those books from the library and try to dig a bit more into this. I haven't really studied this topic, so I know very little about the history and the literature.

By the way I think that this quote alone serves to reinforce the point that I was making earlier. Scientists (regardless of field) have very little to gain from lying, because ultimately the truth will come out. Of course, I don't suggest that scientists never lie, only that there are built-in mechanisms to try to prevent this from happening and to correct things and set the record straight when it does happen, which ultimately makes lying in the first place a bad idea.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 24, 2012, 10:22:11 PM
Cool, thanks. I'll have to pull some of those books from the library and try to dig a bit more into this. I haven't really studied this topic, so I know very little about the history and the literature.

By the way I think that this quote alone serves to reinforce the point that I was making earlier. Scientists (regardless of field) have very little to gain from lying, because ultimately the truth will come out. Of course, I don't suggest that scientists never lie, only that there are built-in mechanisms to try to prevent this from happening and to correct things and set the record straight when it does happen, which ultimately makes lying in the first place a bad idea.
I don`t think anyone intentionally lies, but they are convinced of something and the truth is exaggerated and altered. Some archaeologist find artifacts and claim they are from some distant date in antiquity just so they can get more funding, this happens a lot.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 10:47:50 PM
I don`t think anyone intentionally lies, but they are convinced of something and the truth is exaggerated and altered. Some archaeologist find artifacts and claim they are from some distant date in antiquity just so they can get more funding, this happens a lot.

People are biased and that's hard to shake, even when they try to be objective. So such a thing is plausible. But that's where peer-review comes in. If Professor X is convinced that the shiny penny he found is actually from 1943, and writes a paper about it, would a journal relying on peer review publish it? And let's say it does, what would stop Professor Y, who unlike Professor X, is fair and not biased and relies on evidence from exposing the fraud by pointing out that the penny's composition isn't what one would expect from a coin stuck in 1943?

Another thing to keep in mind is that not every find deserves exhaustive research. Again, consider the situation with dinosaur bones. We have already established a date for the KT boundary layer, with the scientific consensus being that it's about 65.5 million years old. If we find something beneath that layer, then chances are overwhelming that it's not 30,000 or 100,000 years old. Unless other evidence suggests that the find merits a reexamination, then it's reasonable to just use the already established timelines.

This isn't part of some conspiracy theory. It's reasonable, sane behavior. If you are a Ford Mechanic and a Mustang comes in to the shop with problems with its airbag, then you are justified in skipping the manuals for the Mustang from the '60s and going straight to the Mustangs from, say, the mid '90s to try and find out the process to troubleshoot, remove and replace the faulty airbag. Why? Because your extensive experience as a mechanic and your knowledge tells you that the Mustang, like most cars, probably didn't have an airbag for model years before 1995. It's conceivable that you're wrong of course, and the Mustang got airbags in, say, 1991. In which case, you will eventually go back and reexamine your original assumption. But the point is that you don't have to start from the first Mustang ever produced and go forward; you can apply your existing knowledge to the situation; if your knowledge is faulty, that's no problem - the situation is self-correcting.

And what if you don't self-correct? Well, you will hand back the car to the customer and say "I know the airbag warning is on, but I didn't find any matching description about airbags in my research of Mustangs. So your car doesn't have an airbag, despite what the warning may indicate." The customer will most likely go to another mechanic, who will have no incentive to lie to a customer protect your reputation and will happily fix the airbag and tell the customer "and don't go back to that idiot."


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 25, 2012, 02:34:39 AM
So according to the Creationists all the worlds leading scientists, archaeologists, paleontologists, geologists, biologists, astronomers, anthropologists and geneticists are completely wrong.

The Grand Canyon itself displays 2 billion years of the Earth's history and shows all the different layers of soil.

There are even sea shells at the top of Mount Everest, and before you say 'Noah' they are ancient and contain fossil remains.
Mountain ranges are formed by uplifting tectonic plates moving underneath other plates. Some mountain tops were once at the bottom of the sea.

Some mountains and stones have also been formed by compacted shells over a period of millions of years.

The Marianas Trench is also the deepest canyon in the word and is in fact underwater and created by the movement of tectonic plates.
The continents of the world used to be connected and formed a singular land mass.

Africa and South America clearly fit like a jigsaw puzzle. The continents are in fact still moving apart.
But for the land masses to have broken apart and be where they are today would have taken BILLIONS of years.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 25, 2012, 07:23:14 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zsiXcDJ-d1A/TYVPu2k7uDI/AAAAAAAAADg/Vz0wO9d2TYc/s1600/monkey_evolution.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 26, 2012, 03:42:42 AM
So according to the Creationists  are completely wrong.

The Grand Canyon itself displays 2 billion years of the Earth's history and shows all the different layers of soil.

There are even sea shells at the top of Mount Everest, and before you say 'Noah' they are ancient and contain fossil remains.
Mountain ranges are formed by uplifting tectonic plates moving underneath other plates. Some mountain tops were once at the bottom of the sea.

Some mountains and stones have also been formed by compacted shells over a period of millions of years.

The Marianas Trench is also the deepest canyon in the word and is in fact underwater and created by the movement of tectonic plates.
The continents of the world used to be connected and formed a singular land mass.

Africa and South America clearly fit like a jigsaw puzzle. The continents are in fact still moving apart.
But for the land masses to have broken apart and be where they are today would have taken BILLIONS of years.

You are good at keeping to the subject, for that I thank you.

all the worlds leading scientists, archaeologists, paleontologists, geologists, biologists, astronomers, anthropologists and geneticists

I don't think all, but definitely 90% of them and yes given that they all have something in common, they all are dedicated to their field with the pre-conceived notion that the theory of evolution is true


There are even sea shells at the top of Mount Everest, and before you say 'Noah' they are ancient and contain fossil remains.
Mountain ranges are formed by uplifting tectonic plates moving underneath other plates. Some mountain tops were once at the bottom of the sea.


To be honest I find it a lot more convincing that a flood occurred and deposited those shells, in fact I find it absolutely preposterous to suggest a tectonic plate grew upwards and was able to maintain certain artifacts throughout all that momentum and not to mention to have survived for millions of years. Shells are found in every single mountain range.

The continents of the world used to be connected and formed a singular land mass.

There are many scientist who don't believe in the Pangea theory. South America and Africa have continental shelves that fit cause the ocean currents have carved them out that way but underneath the continental shelves there are enormous amounts of land mass that does not line up properly.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 26, 2012, 05:16:58 AM
You are good at keeping to the subject, for that I thank you.

all the worlds leading scientists, archaeologists, paleontologists, geologists, biologists, astronomers, anthropologists and geneticists

I don't think all, but definitely 90% of them and yes given that they all have something in common, they all are dedicated to their field with the pre-conceived notion that the theory of evolution is true


There are even sea shells at the top of Mount Everest, and before you say 'Noah' they are ancient and contain fossil remains.
Mountain ranges are formed by uplifting tectonic plates moving underneath other plates. Some mountain tops were once at the bottom of the sea.

To be honest I find it a lot more convincing that a flood occurred and deposited those shells, in fact I find it absolutely preposterous to suggest a tectonic plate grew upwards and was able to maintain certain artifacts throughout all that momentum and not to mention to have survived for millions of years. Shells are found in every single mountain range.

The continents of the world used to be connected and formed a singular land mass.

There are many scientist who don't believe in the Pangea theory. South America and Africa have continental shelves that fit cause the ocean currents have carved them out that way but underneath the continental shelves there are enormous amounts of land mass that does not line up properly.

Everest is almost 9 Kilometers high, that water-level would have not only killed all land animals but also all species of insects.

In regards to the tectonic plates and a once singular landmass, the plates are still moving.
This is after all the cause of tsunamis and earthquakes, due to the friction of moving slabs of rock as the plates move.
The continents are also still drifting apart at the rate of about 5-10 cm per year, in a direction that is away from the other continents.

Other evidence is also of the discovery of the same types of dinosaur bones and fossils on different continents but in areas that would have once been connected. Not only of dinosaurs but also fossils of the same vegetation.

About mountains being made of seashells, the amount of time it must take for these shells to be accumulated in such massive heaps must take an immense amount of time especially if they comprise parts of other rocks such as granite.

The question is then how did the shells get inside the granite or marble...?
These stones do not just take thousands of years to form, it requires millions of years.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 26, 2012, 06:58:12 AM
There are even sea shells at the top of Mount Everest, and before you say 'Noah' they are ancient and contain fossil remains.
Mountain ranges are formed by uplifting tectonic plates moving underneath other plates. Some mountain tops were once at the bottom of the sea.


To be honest I find it a lot more convincing that a flood occurred and deposited those shells, in fact I find it absolutely preposterous to suggest a tectonic plate grew upwards and was able to maintain certain artifacts throughout all that momentum and not to mention to have survived for millions of years. Shells are found in every single mountain range.

You find it preposterous that a tectonic plate shifted upwards, but what you find a lot more convincing is that enough water poured down to raise the level of the oceans by almost 6 miles.

This calls for math!

Let's let REARTH represent the approximate mean radius of the earth, i.e.: 3,956.6 miles. The height of Mt. Everest is almost 5.5 miles so let REVEREST represent radius of the earth at the highest point of Mt. Everest. We know that the volume of a sphere is given by the formula: VSPHERE = (4 * π * RSPHERE3) / 3.

So the volume of water, give or take a few million gallons, that would be required to raise the water level by 5.5 miles is given to us by this formula:

VEVEREST- VEARTH =
(4 * π * REVEREST3) / 3 - (4 * π * REARTH 3) / 3 =
(4 * π) * [ REVEREST3 - REARTH3 ] / 3


We have:

REARTH3 = 3,956.63 = 6.1939320973496 * 1010
REVEREST3 = (3,956.6 + 5.5)3 = 6.2197982480061 * 1010

So we calculate REVEREST3 - REARTH3 easily:
 
REVEREST3 - REARTH3 = (6.2197982480061 * 1010) - (6.1939320973496 * 1010) = 2.58661506565 * 108 or 258,661,506 cubic miles of water.

Back to our equation from above:

(4 * π) * [ REVEREST3 - REARTH3 ] / 3 =
(4 * π * 258,661,506) / 3 =
(1,034,646,024 * π) / 3

For simplicity, let's let π = 3 exactly. This will actually slightly reduce the volume of water that we will calculate as necessary but that's OK. Besides π being equal to 3 is Biblically approved per 1 Kings 7:23 ;)

Anyways, to make a long story short, we crunch the numbers and calculate that to raise the water level 5.5 miles, we would need... wait for it...

1,034,646,024 miles3 - or over 1 billion cubic miles of water

Perhaps we could convert this to a figure that we can more easily understand, like gallons?

1,034,646,024 miles3 ≅ 1,101,000,000,000 gallons.

Or, in other words, over 1 TRILLION gallons of water.

Yes. That is perfectly reasonable. A trillion gallons of water rained down on the earth... ::)


Update: I made a typo in these calculations, which I have corrected in a post below. We'd actually need over one SEXTILLION gallons of water... ;)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 26, 2012, 09:00:59 AM
You find it preposterous that a tectonic plate shifted upwards, but what you find a lot more convincing is that enough water poured down to raise the level of the oceans by almost 6 miles.

This calls for math!

Let's let REARTH represent the approximate mean radius of the earth, i.e.: 3,956.6 miles. The height of Mt. Everest is almost 5.5 miles so let REVEREST represent radius of the earth at the highest point of Mt. Everest. We know that the volume of a sphere is given by the formula: VSPHERE = (4 * π * RSPHERE3) / 3.

So the volume of water, give or take a few million gallons, that would be required to raise the water level by 5.5 miles is given to us by this formula:

VEVEREST- VEARTH =
(4 * π * REVEREST3) / 3 - (4 * π * REARTH 3) / 3 =
(4 * π) * [ REVEREST3 - REARTH3 ] / 3


We have:

REARTH3 = 3,956.63 = 6.1939320973496 * 1010
REVEREST3 = (3,956.6 + 5.5)3 = 6.2197982480061 * 1010

So we calculate REVEREST3 - REARTH3 easily:
 
REVEREST3 - REARTH3 = (6.2197982480061 * 1010) - (6.1939320973496 * 1010) = 2.58661506565 * 108 or 258,661,506 cubic miles of water.

Back to our equation from above:

(4 * π) * [ REVEREST3 - REARTH3 ] / 3 =
(4 * π * 258,661,506) / 3 =
(1,034,646,024 * π) / 3

For simplicity, let's let π = 3 exactly. This will actually slightly reduce the volume of water that we will calculate as necessary but that's OK. Besides π being equal to 3 is Biblically approved per 1 Kings 7:23 ;)

Anyways, to make a long story short, we crunch the numbers and calculate that to raise the water level 5.5 miles, we would need... wait for it...

1,034,646,024 miles3 - or over 1 billion cubic miles of water

Perhaps we could convert this to a figure that we can more easily understand, like gallons?

1,034,646,024 miles3 ≅ 1,101,000,000,000 gallons.

Or, in other words, over 1 TRILLION gallons of water.

Yes. That is perfectly reasonable. A trillion gallons of water rained down on the earth... ::)

HAHAHAHAH, this is a quality post.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 26, 2012, 10:07:27 AM
You find it preposterous that a tectonic plate shifted upwards, but what you find a lot more convincing is that enough water poured down to raise the level of the oceans by almost 6 miles.

This calls for math!

Let's let REARTH represent the approximate mean radius of the earth, i.e.: 3,956.6 miles. The height of Mt. Everest is almost 5.5 miles so let REVEREST represent radius of the earth at the highest point of Mt. Everest. We know that the volume of a sphere is given by the formula: VSPHERE = (4 * π * RSPHERE3) / 3.

So the volume of water, give or take a few million gallons, that would be required to raise the water level by 5.5 miles is given to us by this formula:

VEVEREST- VEARTH =
(4 * π * REVEREST3) / 3 - (4 * π * REARTH 3) / 3 =
(4 * π) * [ REVEREST3 - REARTH3 ] / 3


We have:

REARTH3 = 3,956.63 = 6.1939320973496 * 1010
REVEREST3 = (3,956.6 + 5.5)3 = 6.2197982480061 * 1010

So we calculate REVEREST3 - REARTH3 easily:
 
REVEREST3 - REARTH3 = (6.2197982480061 * 1010) - (6.1939320973496 * 1010) = 2.58661506565 * 108 or 258,661,506 cubic miles of water.

Back to our equation from above:

(4 * π) * [ REVEREST3 - REARTH3 ] / 3 =
(4 * π * 258,661,506) / 3 =
(1,034,646,024 * π) / 3

For simplicity, let's let π = 3 exactly. This will actually slightly reduce the volume of water that we will calculate as necessary but that's OK. Besides π being equal to 3 is Biblically approved per 1 Kings 7:23 ;)

Anyways, to make a long story short, we crunch the numbers and calculate that to raise the water level 5.5 miles, we would need... wait for it...

1,034,646,024 miles3 - or over 1 billion cubic miles of water

Perhaps we could convert this to a figure that we can more easily understand, like gallons?

1,034,646,024 miles3 ≅ 1,101,000,000,000 gallons.

Or, in other words, over 1 TRILLION gallons of water.

Yes. That is perfectly reasonable. A trillion gallons of water rained down on the earth... ::)
You should know that I was taught in school, from grade 1 all the way through to university that if the glaciers in the north pole and the glaciers in the south pole melted, the entire surface of the planet would be covered in water. Same teachers that believe in Darwinian evolution and same teachers who do not believe in God. The glaciers are huge, there compositions and dimensions, the north pole glaciers are bigger then the US and they are tall as well. Also the height of the tallest mountain today may not have been as tall as it was in the time of the flood


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 26, 2012, 10:12:03 AM
Everest is almost 9 Kilometers high, that water-level would have not only killed all land animals but also all species of insects.

In regards to the tectonic plates and a once singular landmass, the plates are still moving.
This is after all the cause of tsunamis and earthquakes, due to the friction of moving slabs of rock as the plates move.
The continents are also still drifting apart at the rate of about 5-10 cm per year, in a direction that is away from the other continents.

Other evidence is also of the discovery of the same types of dinosaur bones and fossils on different continents but in areas that would have once been connected. Not only of dinosaurs but also fossils of the same vegetation.

About mountains being made of seashells, the amount of time it must take for these shells to be accumulated in such massive heaps must take an immense amount of time especially if they comprise parts of other rocks such as granite.

The question is then how did the shells get inside the granite or marble...?
These stones do not just take thousands of years to form, it requires millions of years.
Very valid points and yes I am fully aware of all the supporting evidence behind continental drift, but do not agree with it,it is a matter of perspective, after all it is only a theory


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 26, 2012, 10:25:12 AM
You should know that I was taught in school, from grade 1 all the way through to university that if the glaciers in the north pole and the glaciers in the south pole melted, the entire surface of the planet would be covered in water. Same teachers that believe in Darwinian evolution and same teachers who do not believe in God. The glaciers are huge, there compositions and dimensions, the north pole glaciers are bigger then the US and they are tall as well. Also the height of the tallest mountain today may not have been as tall as it was in the time of the flood

It would, However, again there is no evidence of this ever occuring, I also, don't understand why you think that earth was always much hotter. It was, but not then, humans wouldn't be able to live. It would have to be rain and 1 trillion gallons of rain seems absurd.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 26, 2012, 10:35:29 AM
It would, However, again there is no evidence of this ever occuring, I also, don't understand why you think that earth was always much hotter. It was, but not then, humans wouldn't be able to live. It would have to be rain and 1 trillion gallons of rain seems absurd.
8) 

Much hotter  ??? ???

I think there is tons of evidence for this world wide catastrophe




Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 26, 2012, 10:41:02 AM
You should know that I was taught in school, from grade 1 all the way through to university that if the glaciers in the north pole and the glaciers in the south pole melted, the entire surface of the planet would be covered in water. Same teachers that believe in Darwinian evolution and same teachers who do not believe in God. The glaciers are huge, there compositions and dimensions, the north pole glaciers are bigger then the US and they are tall as well.

You were taught incorrectly. If all the ice melted, the total rise would be about 250 feet... compare that to 5.5 miles to get to the top of Mount Everest.


Also the height of the tallest mountain today may not have been as tall as it was in the time of the flood

Oh, so after the flood, the mountains could have grown and you're OK with that, but before the flood, they couldn't?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 26, 2012, 10:47:59 AM
You were taught incorrectly. If all the ice melted, the total rise would be about 250 feet... compare that to 5.5 miles to get to the top of Mount Everest.


Oh, so after the flood, the mountains could have grown and you're OK with that, but before the flood, they couldn't?

250 feet, wow just wow, now you are smoking crack  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on September 26, 2012, 10:49:59 AM
I do not have a problem with mountain formation  before or after the flood, What are you talking about?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 26, 2012, 11:55:31 AM
250 feet, wow just wow, now you are smoking crack  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Don't take my word for it. The amount of rise, give or take a few inches, should be trivial to calculate based on the volume of ice currently on the ice caps. It's basic high-school level mathematics.

Also check out http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2004-11-21-melting-polar-ice_x.htm.

I hope this helps.


I do not have a problem with mountain formation  before or after the flood, What are you talking about?

Of course not. You just consider a sextillion gallons of water raining down on the earth to be a more plausible of why fossils of sea creatures can be found on mountains that are far from the sea. ::)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 26, 2012, 12:40:37 PM
8) 

Much hotter  ??? ???

I think there is tons of evidence for this world wide catastrophe




there is roughly 323 trillion gallons of water on earth, it could conceivable cover the majority of land masses, however, avxo just countered that and it appears I am wrong. sorry bro can't help ya.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 26, 2012, 01:25:31 PM
By the way, in my haste to leave for work this morning, I made a typo in my calculation. And I was off by orders of magnitude... So let's pick up where we left off, shall we and let's correct my "small" mistake.

We know that we would need 1,034,646,024 miles3 - or over 1 billion cubic miles of water - to raise the water level on the earth by 5.5 miles. That part is correct. So let's try converting things from cubic miles to gallons one more time. We know that 1 cubic mile is approximately equal to 1.10111715 × 1012 gallons. Let's just say that it's 1 x 1012 = 1,000,000,000,000 to keep the numbers nice and tidy and we'll call it even.

So we have:

1,034,646,024 miles3 * 1,000,000,000,000 gallons per mile3   ≅ 1,034,646,000,000,000,000,000 gallons. Let's put the change in the penny jar - what's a few hundred quintillion gallons between friends? - and just say that we'd need:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons

Let that sink in for a moment... that's 1 followed by 21 zeroes. It's over ONE SEXTILLION gallons. It's over ONE THOUSAND BILLION BILLION gallons.

According to Wolfram Alpha, it's more than 3 times the amount of water present today in all of the earth's oceans combined, which add up to "just" 3.519×1020 = 351,900,000,000,000,000,000 gallons.

Any questions?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 26, 2012, 01:27:18 PM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uieQJSaRXxk/TC0uU0O9WiI/AAAAAAAAB6A/aaGwNZN7rpA/s1600/atheism1.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on September 26, 2012, 11:21:39 PM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uieQJSaRXxk/TC0uU0O9WiI/AAAAAAAAB6A/aaGwNZN7rpA/s1600/atheism1.jpg)
For someone who claims to not Insult other peoples faiths or beliefs, you sure do a good job of being a hypocrite.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on September 26, 2012, 11:46:37 PM
 ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 27, 2012, 10:29:39 AM
I know everyone is arguing about the absurdity of the volume of rainfall in regards to the flood, but according to scripture the flood waters had two sources: rainfall and underground fountains.

Genesis 7:11
English Standard Version (ESV)

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.




Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 27, 2012, 11:00:32 AM
I know everyone is arguing about the absurdity of the volume of rainfall in regards to the flood, but according to scripture the flood waters had two sources: rainfall and underground fountains.

Genesis 7:11
English Standard Version (ESV)

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.




the number is still impossible, flat out impossible.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 27, 2012, 11:08:35 AM
the number is still impossible, flat out impossible.

Saying it won't make it so :)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 27, 2012, 11:45:25 AM



It's not the same, the proof is in the math directly above. How much water is on earth, roughly 323 trillion gallons, now look at that number, it would have to be an insane amount. It would have to be more water then three times what we currently have, do you not realize how absurd that is? the fact that I'm arguing this makes me feel retarded to be honest, even if it was possible noahs story is beyond reason.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 27, 2012, 11:57:18 AM

It's not the same, the proof is in the math directly above. How much water is on earth, roughly 323 trillion gallons, now look at that number, it would have to be an insane amount. It would have to be more water then three times what we currently have, do you not realize how absurd that is? the fact that I'm arguing this makes me feel retarded to be honest, even if it was possible noahs story is beyond reason.

And how much water came from under the ground?  "...all the fountains of the great deep burst forth...".    Two sources of water, not just one.  I'm just tellin ya what it says cause the focus has been on rainfall as the only source.  When the flood is debated everyone tends to focus only on rainfall, "...for 40 days and 40 nights...".


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 27, 2012, 01:02:38 PM
And how much water came from under the ground?  "...all the fountains of the great deep burst forth...".    Two sources of water, not just one.  I'm just tellin ya what it says cause the focus has been on rainfall as the only source.  When the flood is debated everyone tends to focus only on rainfall, "...for 40 days and 40 nights...".

well where does rain come from? obviously that would deplete the reserves, also there is no way the aquafers of the earth have more water then the oceans. Also, it's silly, that's the only point I think needs to be made, it did not happen, it is impossible, the math makes no sense nor does the logic or reasoning. You have to bend logic and suspend rationale to believe what you believe. We know how it happened, it's not a debate, it is occuring as we speak, the universe corroborates the earths age so not only would all of dating have to be wrong regarding geology and chemistry but all of cosmology and astronomy also. It is silly, just look at the evidence it is clear, the data all make sense as a whole, nothing has ever contradicted this. Sure there are percent errors but from billions of years to 6000 no, we would have to be retarded.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 27, 2012, 01:04:54 PM
lol i am not hypocrite. I am returning due where its due. I don't respect any of these atheists on here as they were sinister, rude, disrespectful, cyinical and sarcastic while boasting of their own self glorifying superiority. The picture was quite fitting. They showed not one ounce of respect in any of the threads relating to religion or God. They always come off as the supreme holders of 'evidences' against theists, yet when their beliefs are confronted they have nothing and are far more into lala land just angry and filled with hatred of those who believe in God. If some of them had the ability they would kill off all theists. Didn't one of them say those who believe in God are mentally diseased?

I had no intent of even talking to atheists on here as I know how they behave in 'debates' or discussions. However when they started being derogatory in theist threads I started responding.

Secondly I am disappointed in you man of steel. I guess the truth of what you believes comes out of you finally as well. I guess it angered you that I said that God is not a man and that God is not male in the God thread?

See unlike you, I would not ridicule Jesus as I believe in Jesus. I get angry and upset whenever someone ridicules Jesus, such as Israelis while no one here feels any remorse about that ironically. Atheists ridicule everyone who believes in God or anything related. So you are far more on their level than you think.

In the end, it changes nothing about Muhammad (pbuh) and who he was and what he did. Your lies and ridicule only show who you truly are.

My picture is a realistic reflection of what atheists are like on this forum subsection.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 27, 2012, 01:10:46 PM
lol i am not hypocrite. I am returning due where its due. I don't respect any of these atheists on here as they were sinister, rude, disrespectful, cyinical and sarcastic while boasting of their own self glorifying superiority. The picture was quite fitting. They showed not one ounce of respect in any of the threads relating to religion or God. They always come off as the supreme holders of 'evidences' against theists, yet when their beliefs are confronted they have nothing and are far more into lala land just angry and filled with hatred of those who believe in God. If some of them had the ability they would kill off all theists. Didn't one of them say those who believe in God are mentally diseased?

I had no intent of even talking to atheists on here as I know how they behave in 'debates' or discussions. However when they started being derogatory in theist threads I started responding.

Secondly I am disappointed in you man of steel. I guess the truth of what you believes comes out of you finally as well. I guess it angered you that I said that God is not a man and that God is not male in the God thread?

See unlike you, I would not ridicule Jesus as I believe in Jesus. I get angry and upset whenever someone ridicules Jesus, such as Israelis while no one here feels any remorse about that ironically. Atheists ridicule everyone who believes in God or anything related. So you are far more on their level than you think.

In the end, it changes nothing about Muhammad (pbuh) and who he was and what he did. Your lies and ridicule only show who you truly are.

My picture is a realistic reflection of what atheists are like on this forum subsection.

how can a gimmick reach over a thousand posts, it's like a part time job.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 27, 2012, 01:15:54 PM
what the heck is a gimmick?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 27, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
Man of Steel:

According to http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/sc2.html you need 26,067,840 gallons to rain down to raise the water level 1.5 inches over one square mile. I'm picking this number, since according to Wikipedia that's the highest level of rainfall recorded, per minute. Let's assume, for this discussion, that that much water came down, per minute, across the entire earth, which has a surface area of approximately 196,939,900 miles2. That would mean that 5,133,797,802,816,000 gallons would be coming down, every minute. That's more than 1.5 times the volume of water in Lake Superior.

At that rate to get to the amount of water required to cover Mt. Everest would take almost 140 days of non-stop rain pouring 26,067,840 gallons per minute per square mile.

"Ahh!" you may say, "That's how it happened. God is great, and can easily cause not just 26,067,840 gallons per minute per square mile but even 27,000,000 gallons per minute per square mile!" But before you do, let's examine this for a second... We can examine it in many different ways, but for fun let's try comparing this "drizzle" to a beast of a nuclear weapon: the Tsar Bomba!

Let's pick one spot on the earth. Call it X, and put in the center of a square that's one mile by one mile. We know that rain condenses at about 2 kilometers above the surface, so let's assume that instead of individual raindrops, we have one single 27,000,000 gallon rain-drop, exactly 2 kilometers above our "X" spot. Assuming that it's spherical, our epic raindrop would be more than 188 inches in diameter, and would weigh about 217,600,000 lbs. It would take about 20 seconds to fall to earth, and would impact at approximately 200 miles per hour, with a force of approximately 1935 gigajoules – or approximately 462 tons of TNT, yielding never-before-seen destruction.

But remember, we have 196,939,900 of these drops falling down over 196,939,900 different points, for a total force impact of 381,100 petajoules per spot. The Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear bomb detonated by the Soviets had a yield of "only" 210 petajoules, so this impact would be equivalent to approximately 1814 Tsar Bombas exploding.

And remember, this is per minute... This bombardment would continue, minute after minute, for 140 days, releasing as much energy as detonating 365,702,400 Tsar Bombas would. :o

And for extra credit, let's also, assume, for the sake of argument that this was all possible and actually happened. How would this water then disappear? Let's assume it were to evaporate. At the standard, average rate of evaporation of water on our planet, the amount of water that poured down over those 140 days would take... wait for it... more than 15.6 TRILLION years to evaporate. Good thing Noah brought snacks with him!

Keep believing if you must Man of Steel, but realize, you are believing in something that's not just improbable but, arguably, impossible.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 27, 2012, 01:46:43 PM
And how much water came from under the ground?  "...all the fountains of the great deep burst forth...".    Two sources of water, not just one.  I'm just tellin ya what it says cause the focus has been on rainfall as the only source.  When the flood is debated everyone tends to focus only on rainfall, "...for 40 days and 40 nights...".

Yeah. Use two hoses instead of one. That will do the trick... ::) Belief is one thing Man of Steel, delusion is quite another.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OzmO on September 27, 2012, 02:23:24 PM
What evidence is there of a flood that covered the entire planet?

Can all the species of the planet still continue from just 2 parents?

Or did God just magically make all this stuff happen and then covered his tracks to make it s appear not to have happen using scientific reasoning and evidence?


Must be,must be right?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 27, 2012, 02:26:53 PM
Man of Steel:

According to http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/sc2.html you need 26,067,840 gallons to rain down to raise the water level 1.5 inches over one square mile. I'm picking this number, since according to Wikipedia that's the highest level of rainfall recorded, per minute. Let's assume, for this discussion, that that much water came down, per minute, across the entire earth, which has a surface area of approximately 196,939,900 miles2. That would mean that 5,133,797,802,816,000 gallons would be coming down, every minute. That's more than 1.5 times the volume of water in Lake Superior.

At that rate to get to the amount of water required to cover Mt. Everest would take almost 140 days of non-stop rain pouring 26,067,840 gallons per minute per square mile.

"Ahh!" you may say, "That's how it happened. God is great, and can easily cause not just 26,067,840 gallons per minute per square mile but even 27,000,000 gallons per minute per square mile!" But before you do, let's examine this for a second... We can examine it in many different ways, but for fun let's try comparing this "drizzle" to a beast of a nuclear weapon: the Tsar Bomba!

Let's pick one spot on the earth. Call it X, and put in the center of a square that's one mile by one mile. We know that rain condenses at about 2 kilometers above the surface, so let's assume that instead of individual raindrops, we have one single 27,000,000 gallon rain-drop, exactly 2 kilometers above our "X" spot. Assuming that it's spherical, our epic raindrop would be more than 188 inches in diameter, and would weigh about 217,600,000 lbs. It would take about 20 seconds to fall to earth, and would impact at approximately 200 miles per hour, with a force of approximately 1935 gigajoules – or approximately 462 tons of TNT, yielding never-before-seen destruction.

But remember, we have 196,939,900 of these drops falling down over 196,939,900 different points, for a total force impact of 381,100 petajoules per spot. The Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear bomb detonated by the Soviets had a yield of "only" 210 petajoules, so this impact would be equivalent to approximately 1814 Tsar Bombas exploding.

And remember, this is per minute... This bombardment would continue, minute after minute, for 140 days, releasing as much energy as detonating 365,702,400 Tsar Bombas would. :o

And for extra credit, let's also, assume, for the sake of argument that this was all possible and actually happened. How would this water then disappear? Let's assume it were to evaporate. At the standard, average rate of evaporation of water on our planet, the amount of water that poured down over those 140 days would take... wait for it... more than 15.6 TRILLION years to evaporate. Good thing Noah brought snacks with him!

Keep believing if you must Man of Steel, but realize, you are believing in something that's not just improbable but, arguably, impossible.

Might I add, that everything you've just noted and everything you previously posted via mathematics is also very compelling.   Further, I agree with you....completely.....th e numbers just don't lie.  In addition, I agree with Necrosis, the probability of the flood occurring according to modern standards of mathematics and science is pretty much impossible.....no.....it is ridiculously, completely impossible LOL!  

So, why do I still persist with my God delusion when the evidence against the flood is stacked so freakin high?  Incredibly high!!   Again, I don't object to what you've presented.  Still, I have experienced the risen Christ in my life and that absolutely makes all the difference.  Look, I know the ole "God is great, he can make the impossible possible" doesn't hold water with y'all (no pun intended), but I have full assurance in the heart.  

Oh yeah, I know the heart is an organ...a muscle that pumps blood and doesn't express emotion or contain a soul.

Oh yeah, I also know that I need to use the appropriate language to convey my position.

Oh yeah, I also know that just saying something, doesn't make it so.

Oh yeah, I also know that emotional appeals about faith and God don't overule logic, common sense and peer-reviewed, validated, tested, fully accepted facts.

Oh yeah, I also know that I should go take a course or two in logic, science, history and math.

 :)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 27, 2012, 02:38:46 PM
Might I add, that everything you've just noted and everything you previously posted via mathematics is also very compelling.   Further, I agree with you....completely.....th e numbers just don't lie.  In addition, I agree with Necrosis, the probability of the flood occurring according to modern standards of mathematics and science is pretty much impossible.....no.....it is ridiculously, completely impossible LOL!  

So, why do I still persist with my God delusion when the evidence against the flood is stacked so freakin high?  Incredibly high!!   Again, I don't object to what you've presented.  Still, I have experienced the risen Christ in my life and that absolutely makes all the difference.  Look, I know the ole "God is great, he can make the impossible possible" doesn't hold water with y'all (no pun intended), but I have full assurance in the heart.  

Oh yeah, I know the heart is an organ...a muscle that pumps blood and doesn't express emotion or contain a soul.

Oh yeah, I also know that I need to use the appropriate language to convey my position.

Oh yeah, I also know that just saying something, doesn't make it so.

Oh yeah, I also know that emotional appeals about faith and God don't overule logic, common sense and peer-reviewed, validated, tested, fully accepted facts.

Oh yeah, I also know that I should go take a course or two in logic, science, history and math.

 :)
That's it? You just got owned like that and you advise taking courses in logic, science, history and math? That's what he just owned you with.

Delete this post and try harder. You're embarrassing yourself.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 28, 2012, 06:28:40 AM
That's it? You just got owned like that and you advise taking courses in logic, science, history and math? That's what he just owned you with.

Delete this post and try harder. You're embarrassing yourself.
My suggestion would be to simply reread my post, but concentrate on my last sentence.  I have a feeling you skimmed my post and that's fair....I skim a lot of posts too. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on September 28, 2012, 06:41:12 AM
lol i am not hypocrite. I am returning due where its due. I don't respect any of these atheists on here as they were sinister, rude, disrespectful, cyinical and sarcastic while boasting of their own self glorifying superiority. The picture was quite fitting. They showed not one ounce of respect in any of the threads relating to religion or God. They always come off as the supreme holders of 'evidences' against theists, yet when their beliefs are confronted they have nothing and are far more into lala land just angry and filled with hatred of those who believe in God. If some of them had the ability they would kill off all theists. Didn't one of them say those who believe in God are mentally diseased?

I had no intent of even talking to atheists on here as I know how they behave in 'debates' or discussions. However when they started being derogatory in theist threads I started responding.

Secondly I am disappointed in you man of steel. I guess the truth of what you believes comes out of you finally as well. I guess it angered you that I said that God is not a man and that God is not male in the God thread?

See unlike you, I would not ridicule Jesus as I believe in Jesus. I get angry and upset whenever someone ridicules Jesus, such as Israelis while no one here feels any remorse about that ironically. Atheists ridicule everyone who believes in God or anything related. So you are far more on their level than you think.

In the end, it changes nothing about Muhammad (pbuh) and who he was and what he did. Your lies and ridicule only show who you truly are.

My picture is a realistic reflection of what atheists are like on this forum subsection.

I'm gonna be honest here....I have no idea what you're referring to.  

Ridiculing Jesus?  Angry with you?    Haven't ridiculed my Lord and Savior and I'm not angry with you either.

I continue to speak with believers and nonbelievers because that's my responsibility as a Christian.  I've had all kinds of insults hurled my way, but I don't respond in kind because that doesn't represent Christ.  Some folks I will tune out when they start saying negative things about my family, but if they just attack me I'm fine with that because I know if we were in person it wouldn't happen.  If the back and forth online becomes absurb I'll stop sometimes then too.  

You know, you can still represent your beliefs and speak to others that oppose you...even those that vehemently oppose you...and continue to present compassion and love and kindness.  The Holy Spirit kinds my path, indwells me and has changed me....I didn't always feel this way.  For example, avxo doesn't agree with me, but I don't hate the man or intentionally act ugly to him because we disagree.  Sometimes he tells me he thinks I'm deluded, but that's ok.  Sometimes we inject sarcasm, but there's no anger.  avxo and other nonbelievers haven't had a personal encounter with the Holy Spirit so the perspective is very different from mine, but I'll continue to share regardless.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 28, 2012, 08:01:43 AM
lol i am not hypocrite. I am returning due where its due. I don't respect any of these atheists on here as they were sinister, rude, disrespectful, cyinical and sarcastic while boasting of their own self glorifying superiority. The picture was quite fitting. They showed not one ounce of respect in any of the threads relating to religion or God. They always come off as the supreme holders of 'evidences' against theists, yet when their beliefs are confronted they have nothing and are far more into lala land just angry and filled with hatred of those who believe in God. If some of them had the ability they would kill off all theists. Didn't one of them say those who believe in God are mentally diseased?

I had no intent of even talking to atheists on here as I know how they behave in 'debates' or discussions. However when they started being derogatory in theist threads I started responding.

Secondly I am disappointed in you man of steel. I guess the truth of what you believes comes out of you finally as well. I guess it angered you that I said that God is not a man and that God is not male in the God thread?

See unlike you, I would not ridicule Jesus as I believe in Jesus. I get angry and upset whenever someone ridicules Jesus, such as Israelis while no one here feels any remorse about that ironically. Atheists ridicule everyone who believes in God or anything related. So you are far more on their level than you think.

In the end, it changes nothing about Muhammad (pbuh) and who he was and what he did. Your lies and ridicule only show who you truly are.

My picture is a realistic reflection of what atheists are like on this forum subsection.

It's called freedom of speech.

Under the system you advocate, we would not be able to have any of these discussions.

Under a secular system all people are free to practice their religion and express their opinions, no matter how 'offensive'.
People are free to choose, no one has the right to tell anyone how to live their life: not the government, any religion or any person. As long as a person is not physically hurting another or stealing from them, then they can do as they wish.

There are MANY religions, many different cultures and races and everyone is FREE to do as they wish.

The problem comes in when one group tells everyone else how to live and is inflexible to debate, as a result everyone will single them out as they are disrupting everyone else's harmony and forcing them to follow another view.

This is the reason why the Romans persecuted the Christians; the Pagans were all content for everyone to be able to worship freely and how they wished but the Christians kept verbally attacking everyone else and took a militant stance in insisting everyone else convert.
The same can be said of certain other religions.

I don't care what Moslems do in their OWN countries, but they shouldn't try to interfere with my culture, if they don't like the West then they should go back to the Middle East.

And for what it's worth I'm against American and European military influence in the Middle East, they should pull everything out, seal their own borders and keep both cultures completely separate and let each do whatever they want in their OWN territories.
The Moslems can then have their own caliphate and do whatever they want.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 28, 2012, 09:22:40 AM
You are disconnected from reality. You are not free unless you think being in a forest all by yourself in an isolated island doing whatever you desires command. And what you suggest is whether it's good for you, or bad for you, or good for society or bad for society.

What you are basically saying is you are 'freeeeeeee'. Well you're not.

Daily you are told what you can, cannot do, what you can see, not see, etc... Take media as an example.

Take government as an example. They are commanding you what you can and cannot do, believe, etc... man made laws that you must submit to.

Just a while ago homosexuality was punishable in US states. Today it's being legalized and you are forced to accept it whether you like it or not.

Again you don't really understand what freedom is, all you have is rhetoric of 'freedom freedom' just as most government politicians keep talking about while they keep taking away civil liberties.

And the last point yes we Muslims would love to have our caliphate back, be united, 50 something countries. We'd be the richest, the largest, benefiting each other and the world. However, we can't as your government keeps applying old colonialist tactics of divide and conquer, imposing secular dictators, bribing people, etc... First you leave and dismantle all your military bases all around the world. You have like a thousand+ military bases all around the world!

Lastly, you can't stop people from embracing Islam. I am not an arab or a desi (indian/pakistani), I am a pale white european lol. People are embracing islam in the west with not a single battle being fought. Why? Because unlike some of you that are allowing yourself to be spoon fed by the media and government... there are people out there that are seeking the truth.

Truth is frail and fragile in this age.. as liars and frauds, those who are least trustworthy are the ones that are in power and leading the masses.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 28, 2012, 09:41:32 AM
You are disconnected from reality. You are not free unless you think being in a forest all by yourself in an isolated island doing whatever you desires command. And what you suggest is whether it's good for you, or bad for you, or good for society or bad for society.

That's a weird definition of freedom...


What you are basically saying is you are 'freeeeeeee'. Well you're not.

Asserting something doesn't make it so.


Daily you are told what you can, cannot do, what you can see, not see, etc... Take media as an example.

[I was gonna type something here, but the media didn't tell me what to type yet. I sent in an e-mail to Media HQ and am waiting for a reply.


Take government as an example. They are commanding you what you can and cannot do, believe, etc... man made laws that you must submit to.

That's an oversimplification. We all choose to live in a society and abide by certain rules because we derive benefits from it.


Just a while ago homosexuality was punishable in US states. Today it's being legalized and you are forced to accept it whether you like it or not.

I don't see how I'm forced to accept homosexuality, or why it should be any of my business how consenting adults choose to use their genitals and various body cavities.


Again you don't really understand what freedom is, all you have is rhetoric of 'freedom freedom' just as most government politicians keep talking about while they keep taking away civil liberties.

Whereas you do...


And the last point yes we Muslims would love to have our caliphate back, be united, 50 something countries. We'd be the richest, the largest, benefiting each other and the world. However, we can't as your government keeps applying old colonialist tactics of divide and conquer, imposing secular dictators, bribing people, etc... First you leave and dismantle all your military bases all around the world. You have like a thousand+ military bases all around the world!

Perhaps Allah could help? Surely bases, and bribes and secular dictators and old colonialist tactics by our government can't stop him. After all... He's mighty, wise. No? ;D


Lastly, you can't stop people from embracing Islam. I am not an arab or a desi (indian/pakistani), I am a pale white european lol. People are embracing islam in the west with not a single battle being fought. Why? Because unlike some of you that are allowing yourself to be spoon fed by the media and government... there are people out there that are seeking the truth.

I don't want to stop anyone from embracing Islam if they choose to do so. What I want is to not be forced to embrace Islam or to be forced to cater to Islam and Islamic sensitivities, which is what Muslims across the world are trying to do. Your religion is your religion - it doesn't bind or constraint me. And if what I do violates your religious precepts, well that's too fucking bad.


Truth is frail and fragile in this age.. as liars and frauds, those who are least trustworthy are the ones that are in power and leading the masses.

Such poetry!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 28, 2012, 09:54:24 AM
Your sarcasm makes me not want to even respond to any of your garbage.

Quote
I don't see how I'm forced to accept homosexuality, or why it should be any of my business how consenting adults choose to use their genitals and various body cavities.

You are forced to believe this and accept this if it's made law. It is criminally punishable in some western countries now to even criticize homosexuality. Just one example. In the UK a priest said homosexuality is a sin and he was jailed for it. He appealed to the EU court of human rights (ironically).

In Canada likewise if you are not fined or jailed to a similar effect, you will be absolutely demonised in the media. While just a few years ago there was great opposition to homosexuality but the politics won in the other direction.

So yes you are told and forced to accept beliefs and dos and donts of society. You are not 'free' as your lala land definition of freedom instructs your brain to think.

You submit yourself to desires and man made law. I submit myself to God.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 28, 2012, 10:06:59 AM
Your sarcasm makes me not want to even respond to any of your garbage.

So don't.


You are forced to believe this and accept this if it's made law.

How? I'm not forced to believe anything? I don't have to "accept" anything, except the fact that people have inherent freedoms that I cannot regulate to suit my whims. What consenting adults do for sex is their business, not mine.


It is criminally punishable in some western countries now to even criticize homosexuality. Just one example. In the UK a priest said homosexuality is a sin and he was jailed for it. He appealed to the EU court of human rights (ironically).

The UK is hardly an example of a free country these days. Arguably, it's never really been a free country.


In Canada likewise if you are not fined or jailed to a similar effect, you will be absolutely demonised in the media. While just a few years ago there was great opposition to homosexuality but the politics won in the other direction.

The media is free to criticize and demonize whomever they want for whatever reason they want. Isn't freedom wonderful?


So yes you are told and forced to accept beliefs and dos and donts of society. You are not 'free' as your lala land definition of freedom instructs your brain to think.

Oh well... if you say so. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go mourn the freedom I never had. ::)


You submit yourself to desires and man made law. I submit myself to God.

And that is the problem with not just you, but many other Muslims as well.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 28, 2012, 11:54:19 AM
So you have a problem. You are telling others how they should or should not live their lives or what to or not to believe. Especially if they are Muslim. However you are saying you don't want others to question or tell YOUR culture whatever that is, what it should be or shouldnt be and what you should or not believe.

Quite amusing.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 28, 2012, 01:17:03 PM
You are disconnected from reality. You are not free unless you think being in a forest all by yourself in an isolated island doing whatever you desires command. And what you suggest is whether it's good for you, or bad for you, or good for society or bad for society.

What you are basically saying is you are 'freeeeeeee'. Well you're not.

Daily you are told what you can, cannot do, what you can see, not see, etc... Take media as an example.

Take government as an example. They are commanding you what you can and cannot do, believe, etc... man made laws that you must submit to.

Just a while ago homosexuality was punishable in US states. Today it's being legalized and you are forced to accept it whether you like it or not.

Again you don't really understand what freedom is, all you have is rhetoric of 'freedom freedom' just as most government politicians keep talking about while they keep taking away civil liberties.

And the last point yes we Muslims would love to have our caliphate back, be united, 50 something countries. We'd be the richest, the largest, benefiting each other and the world. However, we can't as your government keeps applying old colonialist tactics of divide and conquer, imposing secular dictators, bribing people, etc... First you leave and dismantle all your military bases all around the world. You have like a thousand+ military bases all around the world!

Lastly, you can't stop people from embracing Islam. I am not an arab or a desi (indian/pakistani), I am a pale white european lol. People are embracing islam in the west with not a single battle being fought. Why? Because unlike some of you that are allowing yourself to be spoon fed by the media and government... there are people out there that are seeking the truth.

Truth is frail and fragile in this age.. as liars and frauds, those who are least trustworthy are the ones that are in power and leading the masses.

There obviously have to be some laws and they're generally one's that keep some degree of basic order, safety, enforce property rights etc and for the most part agreed upon.

And no-one is 'telling' me what to do, I'm free to think and do whatever I want as long as I'm not attacking or stealing from another.
This is convenient for everybody, so we accept these laws.
I can go where I want, watch what I want, read whatever I want and feel safe and free to do my own thing.

I also couldn't care less what another person's sexuality is.

As I said earlier you're free to do whatever you want just don't try to shove it down others throats.
Western culture has its own ways, if Moslems don't like this, then they can go to the Middle East and live under their imposed religious system.

Remember that in our countries we allow you to worship freely and voice your opinion.
The same cannot be said about most Arab/Moslem countries.....where Christians are often persecuted and prohibited from practicing their religion.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 28, 2012, 01:19:06 PM
You are forced to accept homosexuality as legally binded law.

I don't want to be forced to accept homosexuality.

There are numerous things that are forced upon you. Don't fool yourself you are not free.

Can you spray swastikas randomly? No. There's limitations.

You are the ones trying to impose your 'values' upon Muslims, we are really not trying to impose anything on you except on ourselves and you have a problem with that. You have a problem with us explaining what we believe too.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on September 28, 2012, 02:33:43 PM
You are forced to accept homosexuality as legally binded law.

How so? At best, all I'm forced to accept is that some people like using their genitals differently than I do.


I don't want to be forced to accept homosexuality.

Accept homosexuality? It's a fact of nature, your "acceptance" of it notwithstanding.


There are numerous things that are forced upon you. Don't fool yourself you are not free.

That's true. I can't get extra large sodas in New York anymore. :-\


Can you spray swastikas randomly? No. There's limitations.

I can spray them on mine. I can't spray them on other people's property. Sounds pretty free and reasonable to me.


You are the ones trying to impose your 'values' upon Muslims, we are really not trying to impose anything on you except on ourselves and you have a problem with that. You have a problem with us explaining what we believe too.

When have I tried to impose anything on you? As for problems, the only problem I have is with the general tendency most Muslims have to demand that I respect and comply with the precepts of their religions, followed by violence when I don't.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 29, 2012, 03:08:46 AM
You are forced to accept homosexuality as legally binded law.

I don't want to be forced to accept homosexuality.

There are numerous things that are forced upon you. Don't fool yourself you are not free.

Can you spray swastikas randomly? No. There's limitations.

You are the ones trying to impose your 'values' upon Muslims, we are really not trying to impose anything on you except on ourselves and you have a problem with that. You have a problem with us explaining what we believe too.

This just goes to show how evil the Moslem sect is. If it were up to you, you would probably want homosexuals killed.

Moslems hang or execute homosexuals.....maybe the West should do the same to Moslems for being Moslems and classify your people people as an abomination and a disease? How would you like that?

The question should be why should homosexuals be forced to accept you...?
Homosexuality at least occurs in nature but the policies of your sect do not and go against nature.

And no, I can't really spray anything randomly as everyone agrees this is good for basic public order and a civilized culture.

All other religions seem to be able to live in peace with each other except those of the Moslem sect who constantly seek to cause trouble and force everyone else to their ways.
Every single Moslem I've had met has tried to force their 'values' on me.

Romans used to shave their beards to distinguish themselves from Barbarians, and obviously some things haven't changed.

If Moslems want to live in a non-secular state then they must stay in the Middle East where everyone can persecute, kill and impose their cult and backwardness on each other and live in happiness.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 29, 2012, 06:07:55 AM
My suggestion would be to simply reread my post, but concentrate on my last sentence.  I have a feeling you skimmed my post and that's fair....I skim a lot of posts too. 
You're right. My bad.

Maybe I need to take some reading comprehension classes.

See you on campus.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OzmO on September 29, 2012, 08:24:24 AM
This just goes to show how evil the Moslem sect is. If it were up to you, you would probably want homosexuals killed.

Moslems hang or execute homosexuals.....maybe the West should do the same to Moslems for being Moslems and classify your people people as an abomination and a disease? How would you like that?

The question should be why should homosexuals be forced to accept you...?
Homosexuality at least occurs in nature but the policies of your sect do not and go against nature.

And no, I can't really spray anything randomly as everyone agrees this is good for basic public order and a civilized culture.

All other religions seem to be able to live in peace with each other except those of the Moslem sect who constantly seek to cause trouble and force everyone else to their ways.

Every single Moslem I've had met has tried to force their 'values' on me.

Romans used to shave their beards to distinguish themselves from Barbarians, and obviously some things haven't changed.

If Moslems want to live in a non-secular state then they must stay in the Middle East where everyone can persecute, kill and impose their cult and backwardness on each other and live in happiness.

They have no problem fighting and hating on each other too.

Islam is a primitive backward religion


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on September 29, 2012, 08:50:40 AM
They have no problem fighting and hating on each other too.

Islam is a primitive backward religion
Which one is forward looking?

Anyway, back to business...


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on September 29, 2012, 01:50:07 PM
They have no problem fighting and hating on each other too.

Islam is a primitive backward religion

they are all primitive, the only one that is not is scientology, that shit's futuristic.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on September 30, 2012, 12:48:23 AM
They have no problem fighting and hating on each other too.

Islam is a primitive backward religion

Yes, I should have said in 'relative' peace.

Islamists are however the only group currently deliberately targeting innocent civilians on a global scale using terrorism.

Who else is trying to blow-up passenger airlines? Nightclubs? Or just random areas where there are any innocent people...?
Global safety policies have had to be altered to cater to the actions of these maniacs which has generally made the world a shitter place.

And yes, their actions have repeatedly confirmed to be primitive and backwards.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 30, 2012, 09:50:24 AM
lool i love seeing how angry and ignorant you are at the same time. It's amusing.

Ah Americans. Completely blind to the fact they are fucking up the world and murdering millions.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OzmO on September 30, 2012, 11:34:47 AM
So says the tool that FLED from his homeland


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on September 30, 2012, 11:44:51 AM
lol you moron I'm not Arab. I lived amongst Arabs. You don't 'flee' from places you travel through unless America starts bombing the countries then yes you have to flee, but I didn't have to.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OzmO on September 30, 2012, 11:55:18 AM
lol you moron I'm not Arab. I lived amongst Arabs. You don't 'flee' from places you travel through unless America starts bombing the countries then yes you have to flee, but I didn't have to.

So now you are from Canada?

Even so, You should be closer to your kind.   :)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 02, 2012, 01:37:51 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 02, 2012, 06:32:27 AM
.
lol, wow that made me laugh  :D   

I would have added the 2 nukes dropped on Japan ^^^^


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 02, 2012, 10:49:37 PM
lol, wow that made me laugh  :D   

I would have added the 2 nukes dropped on Japan ^^^^

And Snooki & co. And the Kardashians!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on October 03, 2012, 08:12:48 AM
And Snooki & co. And the Kardashians!
and "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j72U074wi1I


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 08:41:48 AM
.

God will judge all sin accordingly....yours, mine, everybody's.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 03, 2012, 12:11:41 PM
God will judge all sin accordingly....yours, mine, everybody's.

First of all, why judge at all? Second, the "accordingly" is nonsense. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 01:21:11 PM
First of all, why judge at all? Second, the "accordingly" is nonsense. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death.

If you prefer to remove "accordingly" that's fine.  Yep, sin is sin.

The Lord will judge whether or not our sin is covered by the shed blood of Christ according to whether we honestly claimed Christ as savior.

Why judge at all?  I suppose so that everyone has an opportunity to stand before the Lord and fully understand the finality of our decision to accept or deny God as we enter eternity (reconciled with or separated from him).  


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on October 03, 2012, 01:53:47 PM
If you prefer to remove "accordingly" that's fine.  Yep, sin is sin.

The Lord will judge whether or not our sin is covered by the shed blood of Christ according to whether we honestly claimed Christ as savior.

Why judge at all?  I suppose so that everyone has an opportunity to stand before the Lord and fully understand the finality of our decision to accept or deny God as we enter eternity (reconciled with or separated from him).  


yuck, can you imagine living in eternity, jesus that would be so boring, I would blow my brains out. Also, if all is eternal nothing we do matters, eternity negates purpose by definition.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: bigbobs on October 03, 2012, 02:19:31 PM
If you prefer to remove "accordingly" that's fine.  Yep, sin is sin.

The Lord will judge whether or not our sin is covered by the shed blood of Christ according to whether we honestly claimed Christ as savior.

Why judge at all?  I suppose so that everyone has an opportunity to stand before the Lord and fully understand the finality of our decision to accept or deny God as we enter eternity (reconciled with or separated from him).  


Honest question here - what do you believe would have happened to us if Jesus did not "die for our sins?"  Would we all go to hell? 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 02:51:51 PM
Honest question here - what do you believe would have happened to us if Jesus did not "die for our sins?"  Would we all go to hell? 

I suppose we would have to continue the OT practices that early Israel did via blood sacrifice per animals, grain offerings, etc...to atone for our sins and reconcile ourselves with God.  Essentially Christ's death and resurrection established a new covenant; that said, if Christ hadn't come as a man to pay the ultimate price we'd still be subject to the old covenant.   

Never really considered that to be honest, but at first blush that's what I got.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: bigbobs on October 03, 2012, 02:56:56 PM
I suppose we would have to continue the OT practices that early Israel did via blood sacrifice per animals, grain offerings, etc...to atone for our sins and reconcile ourselves with God.  Essentially Christ's death and resurrection established a new covenant; that said, if Christ hadn't come as a man to pay the ultimate price we'd still be subject to the old covenant.   

Never really considered that to be honest, but at first blush that's what I got.

I'm actually not familiar with the OT practices that you're referring to, can you expand a bit?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 03:03:06 PM
I'm actually not familiar with the OT practices that you're referring to, can you expand a bit?

Oh man, that's a big ole request.  I'd have to go through all of Leviticus for starters.  When I get home from the gym I'll take a look at some verses.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: bigbobs on October 03, 2012, 03:07:58 PM
Oh man, that's a big ole request.  I'd have to go through all of Leviticus for starters.  When I get home from the gym I'll take a look at some verses.

Okay, thanks, you can give a short Coles notes version or I can try to look it up in google too.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 03, 2012, 03:09:45 PM
Okay, thanks, you can give a short Coles notes version or I can try to look it up in google too.

Admittedly, Leviticus is such a dry....DRY read LOL!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 03, 2012, 03:53:00 PM
Honest question here - what do you believe would have happened to us if Jesus did not "die for our sins?"  Would we all go to hell? 
Maybe not, but the wages of sin is death, so maybe we would be done at the end of this life for good.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on October 03, 2012, 04:10:46 PM
Wages of sin is death? Not necessarily. We Muslims don't believe that for any sin we deserve death.

Ask God for forgiveness as God is the most merciful, it's pretty evident if we are sincere in our repentance God will forgive us as he is The forgiver, the most merciful, the most compassionate.

We don't believe in blood sacrifice/human sacrifice. Simply asking forgiveness and repentance is enough. Only certain types of sins that become publically manifested such as murder, rape, adultery, etc... are punishable, but we do not need to face death for sins. Ultimately God can forgive all sins except idolatry/associating partners with Him/worshipping the creation as opposed to the creator.

We certainly are born pure as children and don't have to be responsible for sins that some ancient dude be it Adam (pbuh) or great grandfather did.

Islam teaches responsibility and accountability. If your ancestors did something, they will be held accountable by God. If you do something, past, present or future people should not be accountable for what you personally do. Everyone is therefore justly delat with


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 03, 2012, 04:59:57 PM
Wages of sin is death? Not necessarily.

I was addressing Man of Steel's comment, in the context of his particular religion. Which makes the wages of sin death.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on October 04, 2012, 02:46:26 AM
Wages of sin is death? Not necessarily. We Muslims don't believe that for any sin we deserve death.

Ask God for forgiveness as God is the most merciful, it's pretty evident if we are sincere in our repentance God will forgive us as he is The forgiver, the most merciful, the most compassionate.

We don't believe in blood sacrifice/human sacrifice. Simply asking forgiveness and repentance is enough. Only certain types of sins that become publically manifested such as murder, rape, adultery, etc... are punishable, but we do not need to face death for sins. Ultimately God can forgive all sins except idolatry/associating partners with Him/worshipping the creation as opposed to the creator.

We certainly are born pure as children and don't have to be responsible for sins that some ancient dude be it Adam (pbuh) or great grandfather did.

Islam teaches responsibility and accountability. If your ancestors did something, they will be held accountable by God. If you do something, past, present or future people should not be accountable for what you personally do. Everyone is therefore justly delat with

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

For a minute their I thought you were serious when you stated that "We Muslims don't believe that for any sin we deserve death" but then I realised it was a gag post when you stated "Islam teaches responsibility and accountability".  Good Gag A_Ahmed.  It's a good thing the West holds Muslims accountable for their actions and does it's best to eliminate the Vile Religion of Islam


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 07:46:04 AM
Well clearly America believes that that they can wash away their sins like obama despite attacking 5 countries and killing alongside bush 1 million muslims in ten years:

Quote
As a starting point, it means I believe in - that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. Yes, I know that I don't walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully will be washed away.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/barack_obamas_idea_of_staying_in_the_word_and_living_like_jesus.html#ixzz28LUa6Pwu

Apparently Obama lives according to Jesus

Muslims don't put the blame on Eve but God puts the blame on both for disobeying God's commandment to not eat from the forbidden tree. We are not held accountable for what our ancestor Adam did, we are responsible what we ourselves individually do in front of God.

I am not responsible for what you do, or Obama does, or what my mother does, or what my cousin does, but me, myself and I.

No one else should be held accountable for our own deeds. We are to be judged by God alone.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on October 04, 2012, 09:04:49 AM
Well clearly America believes that that they can wash away their sins like obama despite attacking 5 countries and killing alongside bush 1 million muslims in ten years:

Only 1 million Muslims, such a shame, America is going to have to do better than that if humanity is to rid itself of the Islam Plague.  No wonder people criticise Obama, he has only managed to get rid of 1 Million Muslims, with Americas advanced weaponry, surely they could quadruple that in half the time.  And here I was thinking that we were beginning to make inroads on the eradication of Islam, only 1 million, jeeez, not nearly enough.  Oh well, I suppose that's 1 million less goat herding towel heads blabbing on about medieval shit nobody in the modern world gives a shit about, not too mention a decrease in terrorism and a reduction of beheading threats directed towards normal members of the public in their own countries by invading muslims.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 04, 2012, 01:58:19 PM
yuck, can you imagine living in eternity, jesus that would be so boring, I would blow my brains out. Also, if all is eternal nothing we do matters, eternity negates purpose by definition.

This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.


If you prefer to remove "accordingly" that's fine.  Yep, sin is sin.

The Lord will judge whether or not our sin is covered by the shed blood of Christ according to whether we honestly claimed Christ as savior.

Why judge at all?  I suppose so that everyone has an opportunity to stand before the Lord and fully understand the finality of our decision to accept or deny God as we enter eternity (reconciled with or separated from him).  


I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 04, 2012, 02:03:08 PM
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.


I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.

Oh, the answer I gave was free....no worries.   Here's hoping you find that special someone with a cogent answer!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on October 04, 2012, 02:06:52 PM
Surah Dhariyat verse 56

"I have not created the jinn and men except for this that they should worship Me alone."

As such we strive to please God almighty. God gives us criterion of how to live in this life, to be grateful to him for all he has provided for us including our existence.

This life is nothing but a test for us and a temporary residence. As a result, for our sincere good deeds he will reward us and for our sins punish us in the after life.

What awaits us are things no eyes have seen, no ears have heard and no mind has conceived. The best we have to imagine what this will be like are similitudes to this world but magnified to unimaginable degrees. That will be the reward in the next life, an eternal life. A life of living similar to this but better, without suffering, without corruption, without prejudice, without jealousy, without any evil.

A person who suffered all their life in this world when shown for a second heaven will be asked if he ever suffered will say verily I have not. After having a taste of heaven for a mere second.

A person who boasted of pleasures in this life but denied God and did evil, debauchery and vain desires... when he will be given a second of hell, he will be asked has he enjoyed this temporary life the dunya, he will say verily I have not, I had no pleasure.

God calls this life just a game/entertainment and a past time:

And this worldly life is not but diversion and amusement. And indeed, the home of the Hereafter - that is the [eternal] life, if only they knew. Verse (29:64)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on October 05, 2012, 04:29:11 AM
Only 1 million Muslims, such a shame, America is going to have to do better than that if humanity is to rid itself of the Islam Plague.  No wonder people criticise Obama, he has only managed to get rid of 1 Million Muslims, with Americas advanced weaponry, surely they could quadruple that in half the time.  And here I was thinking that we were beginning to make inroads on the eradication of Islam, only 1 million, jeeez, not nearly enough.  Oh well, I suppose that's 1 million less goat herding towel heads blabbing on about medieval shit nobody in the modern world gives a shit about, not too mention a decrease in terrorism and a reduction of beheading threats directed towards normal members of the public in their own countries by invading muslims.

Those killings aren't even from direct action but rather from the Moslems killing each other like primitive tribes people.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on October 05, 2012, 04:42:51 AM
Surah Dhariyat verse 56

"I have not created the jinn and men except for this that they should worship Me alone."

As such we strive to please God almighty. God gives us criterion of how to live in this life, to be grateful to him for all he has provided for us including our existence.

This life is nothing but a test for us and a temporary residence. As a result, for our sincere good deeds he will reward us and for our sins punish us in the after life.

What awaits us are things no eyes have seen, no ears have heard and no mind has conceived. The best we have to imagine what this will be like are similitudes to this world but magnified to unimaginable degrees. That will be the reward in the next life, an eternal life. A life of living similar to this but better, without suffering, without corruption, without prejudice, without jealousy, without any evil.

A person who suffered all their life in this world when shown for a second heaven will be asked if he ever suffered will say verily I have not. After having a taste of heaven for a mere second.

A person who boasted of pleasures in this life but denied God and did evil, debauchery and vain desires... when he will be given a second of hell, he will be asked has he enjoyed this temporary life the dunya, he will say verily I have not, I had no pleasure.

God calls this life just a game/entertainment and a past time:

And this worldly life is not but diversion and amusement. And indeed, the home of the Hereafter - that is the [eternal] life, if only they knew. Verse (29:64)
I am grateful to God for ensuring the West is superior and regularly destroys Muslims for practicing an evil ideology called Islam.  Thanks God!  Keep up the Good work slaughtering evil Muslims


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 06, 2012, 09:50:09 PM
Surah Dhariyat verse 56

"I have not created the jinn and men except for this that they should worship Me alone."

Why would he demand that he be worshipped, and make that the exclusive purpose of "jinn" and men? Sounds like Allah is very insecure and he wants some reassurance.


This life is nothing but a test for us and a temporary residence. As a result, for our sincere good deeds he will reward us and for our sins punish us in the after life.

Actually, no. According to Surah Dhariyat verse 56, which you conveniently just posted above, life is all about kissing ass.


What awaits us are things no eyes have seen, no ears have heard and no mind has conceived. The best we have to imagine what this will be like are similitudes to this world but magnified to unimaginable degrees. That will be the reward in the next life, an eternal life. A life of living similar to this but better, without suffering, without corruption, without prejudice, without jealousy, without any evil.

So to imagine what awaits us, which is unimaginable, all we have to do imagine things we know and magnify them to unimaginable degrees? I can't even begin to imagine how you could put this together. Kudos. You're quite imaginative.


A person who suffered all their life in this world when shown for a second heaven will be asked if he ever suffered will say verily I have not. After having a taste of heaven for a mere second.

Yeah... right... ::)



God calls this life just a game/entertainment and a past time:

And this worldly life is not but diversion and amusement. And indeed, the home of the Hereafter - that is the [eternal] life, if only they knew. Verse (29:64)

You're right. It's all fun and games... just fun and games. Eight-year olds begging to die to end the suffering from cancer? (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/oct/06/living-became-too-painful-for-8-year-old-lisa/)? It's fun and games... Children dying of hunger or malnutrition by the dozen (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2012/09/08/5-guatemala-tots-die-malnutrition-in-2012/)? It's fun and games... Women attacked and horribly burned with acid (http://bop.nppa.org/2008/still_photography/winners/index.php?cat=SPP&place=3rd&item=27609)? It's fun and games... Children sold, branded soldiers and used as cannon fodder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/sudan.humanrights)? It's fun and games...

YOU DISGUST AND OFFEND ME.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on October 06, 2012, 10:36:43 PM
A_Ahmed is a delusional clown along with the rest of his Muslim brethren.  Muslims are busy making other peoples life and their afterlife a shithole,   My hope is in the after life, they have finally found a way to deal with the crazy Muslims.  My idea of heaven is presiding over a massive fire pit where I get to throw the newly deceased muslims in too so they won't be any bother to the other patrons there.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 13, 2012, 09:50:14 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 13, 2012, 09:52:02 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 14, 2012, 11:07:59 AM
.

Rules for slavery regarding Israel in the OT had nothing to do with the antebellum South or the slavery they were delivered from in Egypt.  Two entirely different things....one was forced (antebellum South and Egypt) and the other was voluntary/customary for debt payment (Israel).  One was about inhumanity (antebellum South and Egypt) and one was about the preservation of humanity and rights of the servant/slave while working off individual or family debt (Israel).  The word "slave" is always incorrecty associated with the antebellum South...just not the case for OT Israel.  I could on, but I'll stop for now.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 15, 2012, 02:36:22 AM
Rules for slavery regarding Israel in the OT had nothing to do with the antebellum South or the slavery they were delivered from in Egypt.  Two entirely different things....one was forced (antebellum South and Egypt) and the other was voluntary/customary for debt payment (Israel).  One was about inhumanity (antebellum South and Egypt) and one was about the preservation of humanity and rights of the servant/slave while working off individual or family debt (Israel).  The word "slave" is always incorrecty associated with the antebellum South...just not the case for OT Israel.  I could on, but I'll stop for now.
So you're saying that a human being could take the bible and twist it to his or her own ends?

Well, I'm shocked. Hope this never happens again.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 15, 2012, 05:55:40 AM
You know it's true.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 15, 2012, 11:19:30 AM
So you're saying that a human being could take the bible and twist it to his or her own ends?

Well, I'm shocked. Hope this never happens again.

Well people absolutely twist things, but no twisting in this regard.  Critics of the bible and especially the idea of OT slavery in Israel don't understand what was occurring.  The word "slavery" is read and immediately associated with torture, death camps, inhumane treatment of people, working like dogs, abuse of men/women/children.....absolutely not what was happening in OT Israel.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: tbombz on October 15, 2012, 12:14:00 PM
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.



^^^ LOL !!!!!

YOUR ASSUMING THAT KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, AND HAPPINESS ARE ALL FINITE IN NATURE, YOU FOOL.



I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.

 STOP THINKING IN TERMS OF WHAT "THE BIBLE" TELLS YOU. OPEN UP YOUR MIND, JACKASS!!!  ;D  ;D  YOU CANT THINK OF ANY REASON WHY AN ETERNAL BEING MIGHT WANT SOME COMPANY ??  ;)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: tbombz on October 15, 2012, 12:16:18 PM
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.



^^^ LOL !!!!!

YOUR ASSUMING THAT KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, AND HAPPINESS ARE ALL FINITE IN NATURE, YOU FOOL.



I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.

 STOP THINKING IN TERMS OF WHAT "THE BIBLE" TELLS YOU. OPEN UP YOUR MIND, JACKASS!!!  ;D  ;D  YOU CANT THINK OF ANY REASON WHY AN ETERNAL BEING MIGHT WANT SOME COMPANY ??  ;)



You're right. It's all fun and games... just fun and games. Eight-year olds begging to die to end the suffering from cancer? (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/oct/06/living-became-too-painful-for-8-year-old-lisa/)? It's fun and games... Children dying of hunger or malnutrition by the dozen (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2012/09/08/5-guatemala-tots-die-malnutrition-in-2012/)? It's fun and games... Women attacked and horribly burned with acid (http://bop.nppa.org/2008/still_photography/winners/index.php?cat=SPP&place=3rd&item=27609)? It's fun and games... Children sold, branded soldiers and used as cannon fodder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/sudan.humanrights)? It's fun and games...

YOU DISGUST AND OFFEND ME.


THE FUNNY THING IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SPIRITUAL OPTIMISM OFTEN TIMES COMES FROM THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SUFFERED THROUGH SUCH ATROCITIES  ;)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: tbombz on October 15, 2012, 12:19:05 PM
Surah Dhariyat verse 56

"I have not created the jinn and men except for this that they should worship Me alone."
BLASPHEMOUS BULLSHIT !!!   ANY GOD THAT MIGHT EXIST IS NOT SOME INSECURE, JEALOUS LITTLE BITCH WHO CREATED HUMANBEINGS FOR THE REASON OF GAINING WORSHIP.  FUCKING BLASPHEMOUS BULLSHIT I TELL YOU!!!! 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: tbombz on October 15, 2012, 12:21:27 PM
First of all, why judge at all? Second, the "accordingly" is nonsense. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death.
  OH LOOK!!!  AVXO KNOWS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!! THAT MEANS HE MUST BE A GOOD PERSON TO GO TO FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!!!   LOL!!!!   ;D   HEY, JACKASSS!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!  BIBLE WAS CREATED BY MAN!!! NOT GOD!!!! WHY YOU TALK ABOUT MANS CREATION IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD IS FUCKING STUPID AS SHIT!!!!!   


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 15, 2012, 12:24:21 PM


^^^ LOL !!!!!

YOUR ASSUMING THAT KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, AND HAPPINESS ARE ALL FINITE IN NATURE, YOU FOOL.



 STOP THINKING IN TERMS OF WHAT "THE BIBLE" TELLS YOU. OPEN UP YOUR MIND, JACKASS!!!  ;D  ;D  YOU CANT THINK OF ANY REASON WHY AN ETERNAL BEING MIGHT WANT SOME COMPANY ??  ;)

This made me laugh for ten minutes straight.  ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Skeletor on October 15, 2012, 01:03:05 PM
It took 16 pages and 5 months for tdongz to discover this thread and all he can do is post misspelled incoherent ramblings in capitals. ::) No surprise.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: tbombz on October 15, 2012, 01:36:16 PM
It took 16 pages and 5 months for tdongz to discover this thread and all he can do is post misspelled incoherent ramblings in capitals. ::) No surprise.
go ahead and make your first post in response to my comments.. im  eagerly awaiting the beginning of our discussion..  :)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 15, 2012, 04:28:11 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 15, 2012, 04:31:44 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on October 15, 2012, 09:39:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkxx0wkFVHQ


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 16, 2012, 07:49:36 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 16, 2012, 10:09:02 AM
.

The animals were sent by God not gathered by Noah.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2012, 11:13:38 AM
The animals were sent by God not gathered by Noah.

I am not sure if you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I assume you do. Do you really believe that a ship large enough to fit two of everything classified under the "Animalia" kingdom could have been constructed?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 16, 2012, 11:45:09 AM
I am not sure if you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I assume you do. Do you really believe that a ship large enough to fit two of everything classified under the "Animalia" kingdom could have been constructed?

You don't?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2012, 12:34:45 PM
You don't?

Certainly not by Noah.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 16, 2012, 01:18:21 PM
Certainly not by Noah.

I simply don't know what is meant by "kinds of animals" in the Genesis.  I doubt it means species as we define it, so the population of animals must've been much smaller than we realize.  Again, I simply don't know.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 17, 2012, 06:21:50 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 17, 2012, 07:47:26 PM
I simply don't know what is meant by "kinds of animals" in the Genesis.  I doubt it means species as we define it, so the population of animals must've been much smaller than we realize.  Again, I simply don't know.

So then, after the flood, new animals - the ones we observe today - were created by God?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 17, 2012, 10:47:02 PM
So then, after the flood, new animals - the ones we observe today - were created by God?
Bro there is not that many different types of animals, remember we are talking about 1 kind of animal, so all apes fit under one animal, the zebra, the donkey, and the horse is one animal. The big cats like Lions and tigers are one animal, you see, I bet you can not name 100 different mammals and they are the only ones taking up space and not that much cause they would have been Babies, obviously not full grown.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 18, 2012, 01:40:18 AM
Bro there is not that many different types of animals

*blink* you're kidding, right? I mean really... take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal when you get a chance.


remember we are talking about 1 kind of animal, so all apes fit under one animal

While an orangutan and a chimpanzee may both belong in the hominidae family, I doubt that's what you refer to since they are in that family along with humans. Each, of course, is a distinct genus.  


the zebra, the donkey, and the horse is one animal

They aren't one animal. They are three distinct genera.


The big cats like Lions and tigers are one animal

They aren't one animal. The are two distinct species.


I have to ask Onetimehard: do you have any scientific education? I mean, bare minimum stuff. Your posts suggest a complete and utter cluelessness and the fact is that you're obviously talking out of your ass, making shit up as you go and taking words and using them in whatever way you want and meanings be damned. That's not how it works.


Ignoring the fact that you make this ridiculous assertion without even the typical and flimsy "biblical basis" that is usually employed in such cases, let assume for a second - just for a second - that you are right. How do you account for these distinct animals today. I mean, you have orangutans and chimpanzees and gorillas, all very clearly distinct. They're all supposed to be the same animal? You have tigers and lions and very clearly distinct. They're  supposed to be the same animal? How do you account for the horses, zebras and donkeys, all very clearly distinct? They are supposed to be the same animal?


you see, I bet you can not name 100 different mammals

I'm fairly certain that there's well over 5,000 different species of mammals recognized by science today, so 100 shouldn't be a problem... but then again, those crazy scientists don't use your "grouping" scheme that classifies horses, donkeys and zebras as "one animal". But let's try to play along and use your ridiculous "pulled out of your ass" definition by trying to avoid enumerating the over 100 different bats that exist in the world today. Are you ready asshole? Let's go.

aardvark, agouta, alpaca, anteater, antelope, armadillo
badger, bandicoot, banteng, bat, bear, beaver, bilbies, bison, boar
camel, capybara, caribou, chamois, chinchilla, civet, cuscus
deer, desmana, dibbler, dolphin, dugong
echidna, elephant
ferret
galago, gazelle, gerbil, gibbon, giraffe, goat
hare, hedgehog, hippopotamus, human, hyena, hyrax
jackal
kaluta, kangaroo, koala
lemur, lion, llama, lynx
manatee, meerkat, mink, mole, mongoose, monkey, moose, mouse
narwhal, numbat
ocarro, ocelot, opossum, orca, otter, ox
panda, pangolin, pig, pika, platypus, porcupine, porpoise
quoll
rabbit, raccoon, rhinoceros
saola, sea lion, seal, sengi, sheep, shrew, skunk, sloth, slow loris, squirrel, stoat
tamaraw, tapir, Tasmanian devil, tenrec
vole
wallaby, walrus, wambengers, weasel, wombat
zebra




and they are the only ones taking up space and not that much cause they would have been Babies, obviously not full grown.

Oh well... obviously they would have been babies! ::) Clearly they don't take up much space. Ignore the smallest of issues: the fact that mammal "babies" require suckling from their mother.

 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: tbombz on October 18, 2012, 01:49:37 AM
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.



^^^ LOL !!!!!

YOUR ASSUMING THAT KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, AND HAPPINESS ARE ALL FINITE IN NATURE, YOU FOOL.



I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.

 STOP THINKING IN TERMS OF WHAT "THE BIBLE" TELLS YOU. OPEN UP YOUR MIND, JACKASS!!!  ;D  ;D  YOU CANT THINK OF ANY REASON WHY AN ETERNAL BEING MIGHT WANT SOME COMPANY ??  ;)




You're right. It's all fun and games... just fun and games. Eight-year olds begging to die to end the suffering from cancer? (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/oct/06/living-became-too-painful-for-8-year-old-lisa/)? It's fun and games... Children dying of hunger or malnutrition by the dozen (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2012/09/08/5-guatemala-tots-die-malnutrition-in-2012/)? It's fun and games... Women attacked and horribly burned with acid (http://bop.nppa.org/2008/still_photography/winners/index.php?cat=SPP&place=3rd&item=27609)? It's fun and games... Children sold, branded soldiers and used as cannon fodder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/sudan.humanrights)? It's fun and games...

YOU DISGUST AND OFFEND ME.


THE FUNNY THING IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SPIRITUAL OPTIMISM OFTEN TIMES COMES FROM THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SUFFERED THROUGH SUCH ATROCITIES  ;)


First of all, why judge at all? Second, the "accordingly" is nonsense. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death.
 OH LOOK!!!  AVXO KNOWS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!! THAT MEANS HE MUST BE A GOOD PERSON TO GO TO FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!!!   LOL!!!!   ;D   HEY, JACKASSS!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!  BIBLE WAS CREATED BY MAN!!! NOT GOD!!!! WHY YOU TALK ABOUT MANS CREATION IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD IS FUCKING STUPID AS SHIT!!!!!  


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 18, 2012, 01:58:23 AM
*blink* you're kidding, right? I mean really... take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal when you get a chance.


While an orangutan and a chimpanzee may both belong in the hominidae family, I doubt that's what you refer to since they are in that family along with humans. Each, of course, is a distinct genus. 


They aren't one animal. They are three distinct genera.


They aren't one animal. The are two distinct species.


I have to ask Onetimehard: do you have any scientific education? I mean, bare minimum stuff. Your posts suggest a complete and utter cluelessness and the fact is that you're obviously talking out of your ass, making shit up as you go and taking words and using them in whatever way you want and meanings be damned. That's not how it works.


Ignoring the fact that you make this ridiculous assertion without even the typical and flimsy "biblical basis" that is usually employed in such cases, let assume for a second - just for a second - that you are right. How do you account for these distinct animals today. I mean, you have orangutans and chimpanzees and gorillas, all very clearly distinct. They're all supposed to be the same animal? You have tigers and lions and very clearly distinct. They're  supposed to be the same animal? How do you account for the horses, zebras and donkeys, all very clearly distinct? They are supposed to be the same animal?


I'm fairly certain that there's well over 5,000 different species of mammals recognized by science today, so 100 shouldn't be a problem... but then again, those crazy scientists don't use your "grouping" scheme that classifies horses, donkeys and zebras as "one animal". But let's try to play along and use your ridiculous "pulled out of your ass" definition by trying to avoid enumerating the over 100 different bats that exist in the world today. Are you ready asshole? Let's go.

aardvark, agouta, alpaca, anteater, antelope, armadillo
badger, bandicoot, banteng, bat, bear, beaver, bilbies, bison, boar
camel, capybara, caribou, chamois, chinchilla, civet, cuscus
deer, desmana, dibbler, dolphin, dugong
echidna, elephant
ferret
galago, gazelle, gerbil, gibbon, giraffe, goat
hare, hedgehog, hippopotamus, human, hyena, hyrax
jackal
kaluta, kangaroo, koala
lemur, lion, llama, lynx
manatee, meerkat, mink, mole, mongoose, monkey, moose, mouse
narwhal, numbat
ocarro, ocelot, opossum, orca, otter, ox
panda, pangolin, pig, pika, platypus, porcupine, porpoise
quoll
rabbit, raccoon, rhinoceros
saola, sea lion, seal, sengi, sheep, shrew, skunk, sloth, slow loris, squirrel, stoat
tamaraw, tapir, Tasmanian devil, tenrec
vole
wallaby, walrus, wambengers, weasel, wombat
zebra




Oh well... obviously they would have been babies! ::) Clearly they don't take up much space. Ignore the smallest of issues: the fact that mammal "babies" require suckling from their mother.

 

Well as soon as you get it through your thick skull that the terms you classify those animals under are what you believe the interpretation of the Bible is, I am telling you right now that this is not what the Bible means, you can not apply your 20th century terminology on what you think Noah brought into the Arké

So listen up, Bible lesson 101, there was no zebra, donkey and horse in the Ark, there was only one, and who gives a rats ass on you classifying them as different species, the Bible DOES NOT, GET OVER IT.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 18, 2012, 02:01:02 AM
aardvark, agouta, alpaca, anteater, antelope, armadillo
badger, bandicoot, banteng, bat, bear, beaver, bilbies, bison, boar
camel, capybara, caribou, chamois, chinchilla, civet, cuscus
deer, desmana, dibbler, dolphin, dugong
echidna, elephant
ferret
galago, gazelle, gerbil, gibbon, giraffe, goat
hare, hedgehog, hippopotamus, human, hyena, hyrax
jackal
kaluta, kangaroo, koala
lemur, lion, llama, lynx
manatee, meerkat, mink, mole, mongoose, monkey, moose, mouse
narwhal, numbat
ocarro, ocelot, opossum, orca, otter, ox
panda, pangolin, pig, pika, platypus, porcupine, porpoise
quoll
rabbit, raccoon, rhinoceros
saola, sea lion, seal, sengi, sheep, shrew, skunk, sloth, slow loris, squirrel, stoat
tamaraw, tapir, Tasmanian devil, tenrec
vole
wallaby, walrus, wambengers, weasel, wombat
zebra
 

see what I mean you struggled making that list the size it was and that only fills up a small room considering the animals on the ark where all babies.  Thanks for proving my point.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 18, 2012, 02:21:03 AM
Well as soon as you get it through your thick skull that the terms you classify those animals under are what you believe the interpretation of the Bible is, I am telling you right now that this is not what the Bible means, you can not apply your 20th century terminology on what you think Noah brought into the Arké

So listen up, Bible lesson 101, there was no zebra, donkey and horse in the Ark, there was only one, and who gives a rats ass on you classifying them as different species, the Bible DOES NOT, GET OVER IT.

No you assert that there were no zebras, donkeys, and horses in the ark, but provide no proof. You assert that the Bible doesn't mean what it says: that two of every animal were in the ark, but only some species but you, again, provide no evidence for it. There's a difference between what you assert but can't prove and what is actually said in the text.

Besides, if, say, zebras weren't in the arc, where did zebras come from? And if they were, actually, babies (so as to "not take up much space") who suckled them? Mammalian babies require suckling. Did you know that?

And let's not forget that there are animals other than mammals - like reptiles and insects and even birds! Don't conveniently forget those when you're making shit up.


aardvark, agouta, alpaca, anteater, antelope, armadillo
badger, bandicoot, banteng, bat, bear, beaver, bilbies, bison, boar
camel, capybara, caribou, chamois, chinchilla, civet, cuscus
deer, desmana, dibbler, dolphin, dugong
echidna, elephant
ferret
galago, gazelle, gerbil, gibbon, giraffe, goat
hare, hedgehog, hippopotamus, human, hyena, hyrax
jackal
kaluta, kangaroo, koala
lemur, lion, llama, lynx
manatee, meerkat, mink, mole, mongoose, monkey, moose, mouse
narwhal, numbat
ocarro, ocelot, opossum, orca, otter, ox
panda, pangolin, pig, pika, platypus, porcupine, porpoise
quoll
rabbit, raccoon, rhinoceros
saola, sea lion, seal, sengi, sheep, shrew, skunk, sloth, slow loris, squirrel, stoat
tamaraw, tapir, Tasmanian devil, tenrec
vole
wallaby, walrus, wambengers, weasel, wombat
zebra
 

see what I mean you struggled making that list the size it was and that only fills up a small room considering the animals on the ark where all babies.  Thanks for proving my point.

The only struggle was sorting it. I don't see how this list proves your "point" (and I use the term loosely). Allot proves is that you lost the bet that you made by challenging me to name 100 different mammals


Of course, it was a stupid bet to begin with and you had already lost when you hit "Post" since as I said, there's over 5000 different mammals, so 100 is less than 2% of mammals.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 18, 2012, 02:29:58 AM
Bro there is not that many different types of animals, remember we are talking about 1 kind of animal, so all apes fit under one animal, the zebra, the donkey, and the horse is one animal. The big cats like Lions and tigers are one animal, you see, I bet you can not name 100 different mammals and they are the only ones taking up space and not that much cause they would have been Babies, obviously not full grown.
this made me laugh


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 18, 2012, 02:54:51 AM
this made me laugh
Why? please explain  ???


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on October 18, 2012, 04:33:44 AM
Why? please explain  ???

Dude, how did noah get the grizzly bear? did he travel across the oceans? What did the carnivores eat? jesus, I can't believe I'm responding to this :-\

what is happening to my life when I take the time to point out how retarded something like this is.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 18, 2012, 04:37:53 AM
Dude, how did noah get the grizzly bear? did he travel across the oceans? What did the carnivores eat? jesus, I can't believe I'm responding to this :-\

what is happening to my life when I take the time to point out how retarded something like this is.
So you know where Noah lived?, funny cause I do not and I have read more Bible then you, you know where the animals lived?. Where they lived today does not mean they lived there before the flood, wow you must have some super powers to know all this.  :D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 18, 2012, 08:21:51 AM
So you know where Noah lived?, funny cause I do not and I have read more Bible then you, you know where the animals lived?. Where they lived today does not mean they lived there before the flood, wow you must have some super powers to know all this.  :D

But you know that zebras, horses and donkeys are one animal for ark purposes; that lions and tigers and other big cars are one animal for ark purposes. You know that despite the Bible never saying anything to that effect.

But you know that the male and female zebra-donkey-horses were "babies" to not take up a lot of space; that the lion-tiger-bigcats were "babies" to not take a lot of space. You know that despite the Bible never saying anything to that effect.

Why superpowers do you have to know all this? To pull nonsense out of your ass to explain a nonsense story while pretending that it's all perfectly rational and sensible?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on October 18, 2012, 08:34:49 AM
So you know where Noah lived?, funny cause I do not and I have read more Bible then you, you know where the animals lived?. Where they lived today does not mean they lived there before the flood, wow you must have some super powers to know all this.  :D

avxo's response is lulz but I am using logic. Certain animals as you know require unique climates, say the polar bear. This fact alone would allow me to deduce that they would have to be in a northern region such as the baffin islands, the artic etc. Now Noah is but one man so I would assume that he lived in a relatively small geographical region, unless of course, he can multiply himself. Now based off those simply truths he would have to travel amazing distances to obtain said animals, or animals would have to venture towards him.

Polar bears is just one example,Kangaroos? did they hop across the ocean?

Granted all animals were within distance, the climates would have to be dramatically different for them to survive as it is not their habitat. My view takes little to no contortion, while your's requires great leaps to supply your story.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: tbombz on October 18, 2012, 11:49:29 AM
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.



^^^ LOL !!!!!

YOUR ASSUMING THAT KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, AND HAPPINESS ARE ALL FINITE IN NATURE, YOU FOOL.



I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.

 STOP THINKING IN TERMS OF WHAT "THE BIBLE" TELLS YOU. OPEN UP YOUR MIND, JACKASS!!!  ;D  ;D  YOU CANT THINK OF ANY REASON WHY AN ETERNAL BEING MIGHT WANT SOME COMPANY ??  ;)




You're right. It's all fun and games... just fun and games. Eight-year olds begging to die to end the suffering from cancer? (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/oct/06/living-became-too-painful-for-8-year-old-lisa/)? It's fun and games... Children dying of hunger or malnutrition by the dozen (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2012/09/08/5-guatemala-tots-die-malnutrition-in-2012/)? It's fun and games... Women attacked and horribly burned with acid (http://bop.nppa.org/2008/still_photography/winners/index.php?cat=SPP&place=3rd&item=27609)? It's fun and games... Children sold, branded soldiers and used as cannon fodder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/sudan.humanrights)? It's fun and games...

YOU DISGUST AND OFFEND ME.


THE FUNNY THING IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SPIRITUAL OPTIMISM OFTEN TIMES COMES FROM THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SUFFERED THROUGH SUCH ATROCITIES  ;)


First of all, why judge at all? Second, the "accordingly" is nonsense. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death.
  OH LOOK!!!  AVXO KNOWS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!! THAT MEANS HE MUST BE A GOOD PERSON TO GO TO FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!!!   LOL!!!!   ;D   HEY, JACKASSS!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!  BIBLE WAS CREATED BY MAN!!! NOT GOD!!!! WHY YOU TALK ABOUT MANS CREATION IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD IS FUCKING STUPID AS SHIT!!!!!   


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on October 18, 2012, 01:06:57 PM


 



 STOP THINKING IN TERMS OF WHAT "THE BIBLE" TELLS YOU. OPEN UP YOUR MIND, JACKASS!!!  ;D  ;D  YOU CANT THINK OF ANY REASON WHY AN ETERNAL BEING MIGHT WANT SOME COMPANY ??  ;)






thinking as we know it is a temporal thing, not sure how an eternal being would think.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 18, 2012, 03:29:49 PM
this made me laugh
Sorry, I was on my Kindle Fire and had trouble highlighting the part about there not being many types of animals.

Were you being serious about that?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 19, 2012, 05:17:17 AM
But you know that zebras, horses and donkeys are one animal for ark purposes; that lions and tigers and other big cars are one animal for ark purposes. You know that despite the Bible never saying anything to that effect.

But you know that the male and female zebra-donkey-horses were "babies" to not take up a lot of space; that the lion-tiger-bigcats were "babies" to not take a lot of space. You know that despite the Bible never saying anything to that effect.

Why superpowers do you have to know all this? To pull nonsense out of your ass to explain a nonsense story while pretending that it's all perfectly rational and sensible?
Bro you are like the smartest one here and now you decide to play dumb, really? I expected a lot more from you  :-\... So someone wants to bring animals into the Ark for over 1 year to preserve them and you some how think it is more logical to bring in a 10 000lb elephant then a 300lb elephant, really bro? WOW, JUST WOW

The Bible uses the term ''after their kind" so yes it is indicating that the Zebra, donkey and horse are "one kind", bro I have studied the Bible a lot more then you and have read it front to back every single year, you really want to challange me on what the Bible says?

Are you familiar with Jacob and how he took care of Laben's cattle?... Well this is a fascinating story cause it clearly states that the cattle that pro-created had speckled and stripe off-springs, weird right? So yes the Bible considers the Zebra and the horse one species. Furthermore the Bible is clear the term "kind" is referring to pro-creating, if they are capable of having off-spring the Bible classifies this as "one kind" and yes the Lion and the Tiger can procreate but I do not think a Lion and a big car can pro-create  ??? could be wrong though ;D

Go read your Bible before making false statements about it please  ;)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 19, 2012, 05:27:15 AM
avxo's response is lulz but I am using logic. Certain animals as you know require unique climates, say the polar bear. This fact alone would allow me to deduce that they would have to be in a northern region such as the baffin islands, the artic etc. Now Noah is but one man so I would assume that he lived in a relatively small geographical region, unless of course, he can multiply himself. Now based off those simply truths he would have to travel amazing distances to obtain said animals, or animals would have to venture towards him.

Polar bears is just one example,Kangaroos? did they hop across the ocean?

Granted all animals were within distance, the climates would have to be dramatically different for them to survive as it is not their habitat. My view takes little to no contortion, while your's requires great leaps to supply your story.
Valid point, see is that so hard for you to do? bring a valid point and we will discuss it instead of always mocking and insulting.

OK a few things that you need to know about the Biblical Narrative. 1. is the pre-flood world was globally tropical, the Bible states the four seasons started after the flood and there is evidence to back this up since we know that the glaciers once had a tropical environment. Some theologians believe that the world wide catastrophe of flood was precisely related to the 23 degree tilting of the earth and there is evidence of the tilt not being there in the past as well. Also it did not rain before the flood so the climate was completely different then the climate we have today.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 19, 2012, 05:28:42 AM
Oh I almost forgot LOL at avxo putting Dolphins on the list of 100 he provided, lmao  :D :D :D   :)   ;)  ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on October 19, 2012, 06:30:41 AM
Valid point, see is that so hard for you to do? bring a valid point and we will discuss it instead of always mocking and insulting.

OK a few things that you need to know about the Biblical Narrative. 1. is the pre-flood world was globally tropical, the Bible states the four seasons started after the flood and there is evidence to back this up since we know that the glaciers once had a tropical environment. Some theologians believe that the world wide catastrophe of flood was precisely related to the 23 degree tilting of the earth and there is evidence of the tilt not being there in the past as well. Also it did not rain before the flood so the climate was completely different then the climate we have today.



Let's concede that the earth had no tilt ( a dubious claim) and was generally tropical. The vast geological distances still rebuke your story. Seriously, what you wrote is pure screed.

Let's look at some other problems:

what did that carnivores eat?
what did the herbivores eat? (would have to be quite a large supply of various vegetations to sustain such a massive population
did all the freshwater fish/creatures die? Obviously the worlds water would be salinated, or desalinated which as you know causes a huge problem for marine life.
the size of the ark? an old man made such a craft?
why is there no account of this flood from the ancient babylonians, chinese, Mesopatamians? we have documents during this supposed flood, surely they were killed though?
what of the agreed upon 300 foot rule for wooden craft, it has been attempted and never broken, even today. Noah apparently made a craft much bigger by himself, he was a genius seafarer.


please do your best to answer, thanks.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 19, 2012, 06:56:41 AM
Let's concede that the earth had no tilt ( a dubious claim) and was generally tropical. The vast geological distances still rebuke your story. Seriously, what you wrote is pure screed.

Let's look at some other problems:

what did that carnivores eat?
what did the herbivores eat? (would have to be quite a large supply of various vegetations to sustain such a massive population
did all the freshwater fish/creatures die? Obviously the worlds water would be salinated, or desalinated which as you know causes a huge problem for marine life.
the size of the ark? an old man made such a craft?
why is there no account of this flood from the ancient babylonians, chinese, Mesopatamians? we have documents during this supposed flood, surely they were killed though?
what of the agreed upon 300 foot rule for wooden craft, it has been attempted and never broken, even today. Noah apparently made a craft much bigger by himself, he was a genius seafarer.


please do your best to answer, thanks.


OK more valid points.

First of all the Bible never said, no not once that Noah built the Ark by himself, he could have had 2000 people working on it for 30 years and could have paid them well, never does the Bible say he did it by himself where people get this idea is beyond me.

 Now about ....why there is no accounts of a flood in other cultures, Mesopotamia China etc, you are sadly mistaken there are flood stories in both cultures mentioned in fact every single culture on the planet has a flood story and the precise equivalency to the Noah story is in 200 cultures of antiquity and the story is always the same. A man, his family, all the animal, a boat and a world wide flood, yes over 200 flood stories.

Now your other point about Carnivores, again you guys really need to read the Bible before you talk about it. The Bible is clear that their where no Carnivores before the flood, in fact men did not eat meat. Remember I said in a previous post that it never rained, well a giant mist every morning would spring up and provide nutrients and water to the plants in a different manner giving the plant food different biological value and an amino acid profile sufficient enough so that we need not eat meat and the atmospheric pressure was also different contributing to this as well. Now I understand that just cause the Bible says this does not make it so but at least you know that the Bible is not contradicting itself in these matters you stated.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 19, 2012, 07:51:33 AM
Oh I almost forgot LOL at avxo putting Dolphins on the list of 100 he provided, lmao  :D :D :D   :)   ;)  ;D

Why? They are mammals after all. Or did you not know that?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 19, 2012, 07:54:44 AM
Why? They are mammals after all. Or did you not know that?
are you dieting on low carbs or something? HELLO, they live in the water, they do not need to be in the ARK, ROTFL for 10 min, man you made my day, lol  ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 19, 2012, 08:22:08 AM
Bro you are like the smartest one here and now you decide to play dumb, really? I expected a lot more from you  :-\

Not accepting your ridiculous assertions at face value isn't what I'd call playing dumb.


So someone wants to bring animals into the Ark for over 1 year to preserve them and you some how think it is more logical to bring in a 10 000lb elephant then a 300lb elephant, really bro? WOW, JUST WOW

As I said before that 300lb elephant (which, going by weight alone, would be a newborn) requires suckling. On average, it will continue to be dependent on it's mother's milk for three years. So, assuming the ark story is true, it may at first seem logical to bring a 300lb elephant along, but the bottom line is that it's not logical at all.



The Bible uses the term ''after their kind" so yes it is indicating that the Zebra, donkey and horse are "one kind", bro I have studied the Bible a lot more then you and have read it front to back every single year, you really want to challange me on what the Bible says?

I sure do, because (a) I don't think you know it as well as you think you do, and (b) even if you do know it that doesn't make what the Bible says logical, possible or even probable. Let's examine the situation more closely, shall we?

The zebra, the horse and the donkey all belong in the same genus, so let's assume that that is the modern term for what the Bible calls "kind." It's a stretch, but let's assume it. Let's also assume that a male and a female horse were on the ark. If so, all zebras must have drowned at the time of the flood. And yet, here they are. Where did they come from?


Are you familiar with Jacob and how he took care of Laben's cattle?... Well this is a fascinating story cause it clearly states that the cattle that pro-created had speckled and stripe off-springs, weird right?

Right, and? Those offspring, despite their different skin pigmentation where still the same species. A horse doesn't give birth to zebras, and a zebra isn't a horse with fancy stripes.


So yes the Bible considers the Zebra and the horse one species.

Now that's a stretch, and almost laughable. You are getting desperate.  


Furthermore the Bible is clear the term "kind" is referring to pro-creating

Where is that clarity coming from? It doesn't seem at all clear to me.


if they are capable of having off-spring the Bible classifies this as "one kind" and yes the Lion and the Tiger can procreate but I do not think a Lion and a big car can pro-create  ??? could be wrong though ;D

So, your argument then is that "kind" would actually be the modern equivalent of genus. Even if that were the case, according to wikipedia there are over 1,000 genera that are mammals alone, and if you were to sample two of every kind, you'd still need to carry over two thousand different animals. And that would be for mammals. You still have all the things that "creepeth upon the earth" to go.


Go read your Bible before making false statements about it please  ;)

And now we come to the point where I bitchslap you with your own hand... The Bible's text is actually clear when it says: "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." It says nothing about "kinds" but it does say that you need seven of every "clean" beast, and two of every unclean one.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 19, 2012, 08:23:16 AM
are you dieting on low carbs or something? HELLO, they live in the water, they do not need to be in the ARK, ROTFL for 10 min, man you made my day, lol  ;D

You asked me to name 100 different mammals and placed no restrictions on where they live.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 19, 2012, 08:44:15 AM
You asked me to name 100 different mammals and placed no restrictions on where they live.
Well duh, I thought you would be smart enough to stick to the subject wooooooooooosh....

I laugh at your lack of knowledge of the Bible bro, you are amateur at best.

I said the donkey, zebra and the horse share a common ancestor, so yes through small changes in generations they develope different features. We have been over this a thousand time with MOS, myself and many others, we have no problem with micro evolution, we believe it to be true but there is also a limit to the changes, no different then humans, black, white, orientals etc and here is why I laugh at you; the story of Jacob and Laben describes where an animal that had no stripes pro-created and had an animal with stripes, so you can argue that it did not happen, that is fair but there is no contradiction within the Bible, so that should shut the doors on the Biblical definition of the word -kind- or is your stubborn ass going to continue insisting that is not what it meant when I just showed you over and over that it is in fact what it meant.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on October 19, 2012, 08:49:48 AM
Is it just me or does this seem absurd? a grown man actually believing this?

you are just dismissing the arguments presented with half cocked theories.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 19, 2012, 08:53:38 AM
Is it just me or does this seem absurd? a grown man actually believing this?

you are just dismissing the arguments presented with half cocked theories.


Bro I am fully aware of my position and I agree with you it is much easier to believe that these events did not take place, I can admit that. But you guy are presenting arguments and I am giving my answers. Believe me I do not expect you to walk away believing the flood story, that is not my reasoning for debating with you.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 19, 2012, 09:47:51 AM
Well duh, I thought you would be smart enough to stick to the subject wooooooooooosh....

The subject was "I bet you can't name 100 mammals."


I laugh at your lack of knowledge of the Bible bro, you are amateur at best.

I'm no televangelist, that's for sure.


I said the donkey, zebra and the horse share a common ancestor, so yes through small changes in generations they develope different features.

You didn't say that, but let's assume you did.


We have been over this a thousand time with MOS, myself and many others, we have no problem with micro evolution, we believe it to be true but there is also a limit to the changes, no different then humans, black, white, orientals etc and here is why I laugh at you;

Yeah, we've been over this before. Evolution isn't ok when it conflicts with your beliefs but it's ok when it's necessary to prop them up. There's a word that describes the person who plays that game... do you know what it is?


the story of Jacob and Laben describes where an animal that had no stripes pro-created and had an animal with stripes

Right and? Are you seriously arguing that a brown cow is different from a white cow with brown splotches? What's next? You'll tell us that chocolate milk comes from brown cows and regular milk from white ones?


so you can argue that it did not happen, that is fair

But that's not what I'm arguing.


but there is no contradiction within the Bible

There sure is. In Genesis 22:2, Isaac is Abraham's only son. But in Genesis 16:15, we are told of Ishmael, who is also Abraham's son. Pretty contradictory, no?


so that should shut the doors on the Biblical definition of the word -kind- or is your stubborn ass going to continue insisting that is not what it meant when I just showed you over and over that it is in fact what it meant.

No. All you showed me is that in one place the Bible says that an animal without stripes procreated and its offspring had stripes. You've provided no evidence - even by the Biblical standard for what qualifies as evidence - that kind refers to what would today be called genus. Indeed, the text of Genesis itself doesn't say what you claim it says. It says nothing about "kind":

Quote
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.
6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

I see no reference to "kind" here; but I do see references to "every." So you can keep waving your hands and arguing, but in doing so you are going against the actual words that the text uses. Why would you feel the need to do that, especially for a divinely inspired text?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 19, 2012, 10:02:06 AM
You see the reference to -every- and yes it was every but Zebras did not exist at this point, like I said slight changes in features over time.

Bro you are making a fool out of yourself, seriously stop.

Every theologian on the planet know that the Bible says only child when it is to his proper wife, he can have 10 other children but if they are with other woman that he is not married to the Bible refers to him as having his only child, it has to do with the language more so, Hebrew terminology but no theologians have a conflict with this, everyone (except for you, lol) knows this. BTW I can give a hundred more examples of where the Bible says -only child- and in the previous verses it stated that he had many children.

'm no televangelist, that's for sure.

You certainly are not, that is for sure  :D


The subject was "I bet you can't name 100 mammals."

REALLY?  ??? ??? ???
Cmon now


Yeah, we've been over this before. Evolution isn't ok when it conflicts with your beliefs but it's ok when it's necessary to prop them up. There's a word that describes the person who plays that game... do you know what it is?

NO that is not the reason at all, you are making that up bro, It is a big theory bro, not all of it is wrong.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on October 19, 2012, 10:40:14 AM
Bro I am fully aware of my position and I agree with you it is much easier to believe that these events did not take place, I can admit that. But you guy are presenting arguments and I am giving my answers. Believe me I do not expect you to walk away believing the flood story, that is not my reasoning for debating with you.

serious question, what would happen if you didn't believe what you did. Do you consider the possibility that there is no god and you are in fact, wrong?

I will answer that I concede that there may be a god, I have seen no evidence but I cannot rule it out.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 19, 2012, 10:53:40 AM
serious question, what would happen if you didn't believe what you did. Do you consider the possibility that there is no god and you are in fact, wrong?

I will answer that I concede that there may be a god, I have seen no evidence but I cannot rule it out.
see I respect that position cause you do not assume to be good enough to have all the answers.

I do not know what I would believe if the Bible was wrong, good question, i will think about that one.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on October 19, 2012, 01:16:36 PM
You see the reference to -every- and yes it was every but Zebras did not exist at this point, like I said slight changes in features over time.

Ooh, I see... at that point zebras didn't exist! Now you're getting more and more desperate.


Bro you are making a fool out of yourself, seriously stop

 ::)


Every theologian on the planet know that the Bible says only child when it is to his proper wife, he can have 10 other children but if they are with other woman that he is not married to the Bible refers to him as having his only child, it has to do with the language more so, Hebrew terminology

God sure chose to send his divine word in a language that, apparently, can't properly express what he means to say and requires extensive interpretation, hand-waving and a "divining dictionary" (pun intended).


but no theologians have a conflict with this, everyone (except for you, lol) knows this.

I'm not a theologian.


BTW I can give a hundred more examples of where the Bible says -only child- and in the previous verses it stated that he had many children.

And you're proud of that? At best it proves that the plain language of the Bible is meaningless.


The subject was "I bet you can't name 100 mammals."

REALLY?  ??? ??? ???
Cmon now

Yes. It was. You bet me that I couldn't name 100 mammals. You can even go back and look if you don't want to take my word for it. However, if you're really that bothered by dolphins and orcas making the list, you can bet me that I can't name two more, "non-fish" mammals. But remember, I named 98 such mammals already - are you willing to bet that there aren't two more I can name? I'll remind you, there are over 5,000 species of mammals today...


Yeah, we've been over this before. Evolution isn't ok when it conflicts with your beliefs but it's ok when it's necessary to prop them up. There's a word that describes the person who plays that game... do you know what it is?

NO that is not the reason at all, you are making that up bro, It is a big theory bro, not all of it is wrong.

That you think that it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. The fact is that you cannot present a single shred of evidence that contradicts any claim made by the theory of evolution - micro or macro, and you cannot dispute any of the evidence that is presented and widely accepted as supporting the theory by people a lot more educated in the subject than you.

Whether you choose to admit it or not your objection, at its core, boils down to one thing: it conflicts with your preexisting beliefs. You should have the balls to admit that outright.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: syntaxmachine on October 19, 2012, 09:26:54 PM

God sure chose to send his divine word in a language that, apparently, can't properly express what he means to say and requires extensive interpretation, hand-waving and a "divining dictionary" (pun intended).


Frege in the 1800's invented formal logic, including propositional and predicate logic. This formal language stripped away much of the defects of natural language and has been extended to cover a variety of expressions / ways of talking in natural language (e.g., modal logic).

In other words, it seems Frege was smarter than the creator of the universe, whose infinite powers were only capable of sending His word in fractious bits via ancient natural language in a manner guaranteed to obfuscate the message. Hrm....


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 20, 2012, 05:59:15 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 20, 2012, 06:59:12 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 20, 2012, 07:01:06 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 20, 2012, 07:37:03 AM
.
The new Testament is copied from minority text that are not that old, that is true, but the old Testament completed by the House of King James in 1611 was copied by certain Majority text of the 13 and 14th century, upon examining further manuscript circulating at that time the same was said "no 2 manuscripts where alike", of course lots of forgeries, lots of failed translation etc. This is to be expected, however when the dead sea scrolls where found in 1947 they where concluded to in fact be from the first century and some even as far back as 200BC. 38 out of the 39 books of the old Testament were found in the dead sea scroll and much to everyone surprise the manuscript of the 38 books where exactly the same as the manuscript used in the 17 century, 1600 years later and they where identical.

This means that the Old Testament has not been altered at all or has never changed in the last 2000 years how everyone claims. So just cause there are different contradicting manuscripts circulating today of the New Testament, it does not necessarily mean that the books were not copied by an identical text of the first century that has not been altered since..


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 20, 2012, 09:49:31 AM
The new Testament is copied from minority text that are not that old, that is true, but the old Testament completed by the House of King James in 1611 was copied by certain Majority text of the 13 and 14th century, upon examining further manuscript circulating at that time the same was said "no 2 manuscripts where alike", of course lots of forgeries, lots of failed translation etc. This is to be expected, however when the dead sea scrolls where found in 1947 they where concluded to in fact be from the first century and some even as far back as 200BC. 38 out of the 39 books of the old Testament were found in the dead sea scroll and much to everyone surprise the manuscript of the 38 books where exactly the same as the manuscript used in the 17 century, 1600 years later and they where identical.

This means that the Old Testament has not been altered at all or has never changed in the last 2000 years how everyone claims. So just cause there are different contradicting manuscripts circulating today of the New Testament, it does not necessarily mean that the books were not copied by an identical text of the first century that has not been altered since..

I'm constantly having to squash the garebear memes I come across as well.  He posts with reckless abandon and used to do it with not a single response...that ain't happenin anymore.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 20, 2012, 11:42:07 PM
I'm constantly having to squash the garebear memes I come across as well.  He posts with reckless abandon and used to do it with not a single response...that ain't happenin anymore.
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on October 21, 2012, 03:28:03 AM
.
That is a very dumb myth, people who believe this myth are gullible, people of the ancient world did not think the world was not round, teachers tell us this in elementary school, but I study history and every culture knew the earth was round so I don`t know where this stupid false image of ancient man came from. For crying out loud all you have to do is look at the moon to know the earth is round and people do climb high places and see the curvature of the earth, stupid myth.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 21, 2012, 11:04:59 AM
serious question, what would happen if you didn't believe what you did. Do you consider the possibility that there is no god and you are in fact, wrong?

I will answer that I concede that there may be a god, I have seen no evidence but I cannot rule it out.

From another thread:

Well, regardless of whether or not this God stuff is nonsense you're getting exactly what you want. 

If God is completely bogus, you've lived your life as you wanted to without any religious nonsense.  If God is real then you still get to live your life without the nonsense and when you die you get to spend eternity without God then too.  You can enter eternity, seperate yourself from God and all of God's attributes and lock the door between you and God from the inside.

For me, if God is completely bogus I'll have spent my life dedicated to something that isn't real and willingly wasted time worshipping something that was never there to begin with; although, when I die I won't know the difference as I'll simply cease to be and will have no realization, not a single instant, that it wasn't real.    If God is real then I've lived my life for him and then get to spend eternity with him.

That said, why would I be willing to take such a gamble with my life with "no proof whatsoever"?   Why would I willingly surrender my life for God?  There has to be something else there that nonbelievers don't understand.  I mean, I know you summarized the Holy Spirit with "tweak their brains so that a warm, fuzzy feeling resulted", but maybe there's still something more to it than that despite best efforts to reduce it all away?  Maybe I'm just crazy, maybe I'm delusional, maybe I'm brainwashed, maybe I'm on drugs, maybe I'm uneducated, maybe I'm a moron or maybe.....just maybe.....I've experienced the risen Christ and it was more than a brain-tweaked, warm-fuzzy feeling beyond your best efforts to be reasoned away and reduced to nothing.   



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on October 21, 2012, 11:59:57 AM
.

Easily one of your weaker memes.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 21, 2012, 03:51:17 PM
That is a very dumb myth, people who believe this myth are gullible, people of the ancient world did not think the world was not round, teachers tell us this in elementary school, but I study history and every culture knew the earth was round so I don`t know where this stupid false image of ancient man came from. For crying out loud all you have to do is look at the moon to know the earth is round and people do climb high places and see the curvature of the earth, stupid myth.
Are you talking about religion here?



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 21, 2012, 11:51:07 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 21, 2012, 11:51:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT44NpBG4WY


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 22, 2012, 12:14:54 AM
Best video on Youtube.

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


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 22, 2012, 12:45:38 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: tbombz on October 22, 2012, 02:05:23 PM
thinking as we know it is a temporal thing, not sure how an eternal being would think.
you have no idea whether thinking is temporal or not. thats an assumption your making.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: tbombz on October 22, 2012, 02:06:00 PM
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.



^^^ LOL !!!!!

YOUR ASSUMING THAT KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, AND HAPPINESS ARE ALL FINITE IN NATURE, YOU FOOL.



I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.

 STOP THINKING IN TERMS OF WHAT "THE BIBLE" TELLS YOU. OPEN UP YOUR MIND, JACKASS!!!  ;D  ;D  YOU CANT THINK OF ANY REASON WHY AN ETERNAL BEING MIGHT WANT SOME COMPANY ??  ;)




You're right. It's all fun and games... just fun and games. Eight-year olds begging to die to end the suffering from cancer? (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/oct/06/living-became-too-painful-for-8-year-old-lisa/)? It's fun and games... Children dying of hunger or malnutrition by the dozen (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2012/09/08/5-guatemala-tots-die-malnutrition-in-2012/)? It's fun and games... Women attacked and horribly burned with acid (http://bop.nppa.org/2008/still_photography/winners/index.php?cat=SPP&place=3rd&item=27609)? It's fun and games... Children sold, branded soldiers and used as cannon fodder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/sudan.humanrights)? It's fun and games...

YOU DISGUST AND OFFEND ME.


THE FUNNY THING IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SPIRITUAL OPTIMISM OFTEN TIMES COMES FROM THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SUFFERED THROUGH SUCH ATROCITIES  ;)


First of all, why judge at all? Second, the "accordingly" is nonsense. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death.
  OH LOOK!!!  AVXO KNOWS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!! THAT MEANS HE MUST BE A GOOD PERSON TO GO TO FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!!!   LOL!!!!   ;D   HEY, JACKASSS!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!  BIBLE WAS CREATED BY MAN!!! NOT GOD!!!! WHY YOU TALK ABOUT MANS CREATION IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD IS FUCKING STUPID AS SHIT!!!!!   


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on October 31, 2012, 06:18:29 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on November 04, 2012, 05:01:22 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on November 04, 2012, 06:52:01 AM
.
How does that compare to someone walking on water or healing the blind, oh and there were tons of witnesses  :D ;)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on November 04, 2012, 07:57:26 AM
How does that compare to someone walking on water or healing the blind, oh and there were tons of witnesses  :D ;)

In both cases, the assertion that there were tons of witnesses comes from one source: the Bible. There is no other historical evidence that these events occurred.

And as for the healing of the sick by charlatans... search for Peter Popoff on YouTube one day.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on November 04, 2012, 07:56:53 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on November 04, 2012, 08:26:11 PM
I'm guessing the guy on the right is an atheist


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on November 04, 2012, 08:59:53 PM
I'm guessing the guy on the right is an atheist
Don't know. Never met him.

Maybe they should just have a holy war like so many religions and kill each other for their made up gods.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on November 04, 2012, 09:02:08 PM
I'm guessing the guy on the right is an atheist

Why would you guess that? Besides even if he is, so what?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on November 05, 2012, 10:58:13 PM
I'm guessing the guy on the right is an atheist
Did you figure that out all by yourself  :-[


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on November 06, 2012, 05:41:05 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on November 06, 2012, 05:41:59 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on November 09, 2012, 12:57:48 AM
In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on November 09, 2012, 02:11:05 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Griffith on November 10, 2012, 04:19:42 AM
.

Exactly.

Those are excellent points.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: OTHstrong on November 10, 2012, 05:15:42 PM
.
wHO IS THIS PSYCHOTIC WOMAN?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on November 10, 2012, 05:22:17 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on November 15, 2012, 04:01:21 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Stefano on November 17, 2012, 09:57:56 PM
.

Victoria jackson should shut the fuck up.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on November 19, 2012, 05:51:54 PM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on November 24, 2012, 07:28:50 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: garebear on November 24, 2012, 07:31:04 AM
.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on November 26, 2012, 10:31:43 AM
Season's greetings Getbig atheists and agnostics!!  I trust that those of you in the US survived Thanksgiving and those of you outside the US are building enormous muscles while discussing all the fat Americans and their laughable holiday of obesity!

God Bless!!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on November 26, 2012, 12:16:00 PM
Season's greetings Getbig atheists and agnostics!!  I trust that those of you in the US survived Thanksgiving and those of you outside the US are building enormous muscles while discussing all the fat Americans and their laughable holiday of obesity!

God Bless!!

Thanks - I hope you had a great Thanksgiving with family and friends MoS. And although it's somewhat early Merry Christmas.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on November 26, 2012, 12:32:14 PM
Thanks - I hope you had a great Thanksgiving with family and friends MoS. And although it's somewhat early Merry Christmas.

It was good....busy but good.  The wife and I promised ourselves after years of back and forth between families on Thanksgiving and Christmas that we would just attend one Thanksgiving get together and that's it.  Suffice it to say one of my sisters threw us a curveball that forced us to end up traveling a bit.   Still it was nice, but it made for a very long day! 

I was most aggravated because those circumstances prevent me from eating until I get the meat sweats and then pass out into a fat girl coma.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on November 26, 2012, 03:00:14 PM
It was good....busy but good.  The wife and I promised ourselves after years of back and forth between families on Thanksgiving and Christmas that we would just attend one Thanksgiving get together and that's it.  Suffice it to say one of my sisters threw us a curveball that forced us to end up traveling a bit.   Still it was nice, but it made for a very long day! 

I was most aggravated because those circumstances prevent me from eating until I get the meat sweats and then pass out into a fat girl coma.

LOL... "meat sweats" and "fat girl coma" ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Butterbean on November 27, 2012, 10:47:12 AM
LOL... "meat sweats" and "fat girl coma" ;D
;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on November 29, 2012, 02:08:30 PM
Why are some atheists so hypersensitive about something they don't believe in?


Judge rules atheist court case seeking removal of Jesus statue meant as World War II memorial near Montana ski resort can continue
Published November 29, 2012
Associated Press

HELENA, Mont. –  A lawsuit seeking the removal of a Jesus statue near a Montana ski resort will go on after a national group of atheists and agnostics produced a local member who says he is offended by the religious symbol whenever he swooshes down the slopes.

The Knights of Columbus and four individuals had asked a judge to throw out the legal challenge because the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation had not named anyone actually harmed by the statue on federal land next to Whitefish Mountain Resort.

Without such a person, the Knights of Columbus argued, the foundation had no right to bring the lawsuit.

So the foundation found William Cox, an atheist who lives 15 miles from the northwestern Montana resort. Cox submitted a statement that says he frequently goes to Whitefish and has skied many times past the statue, which he considers religious and offensive.

That was good enough for U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen to deny the Knights of Columbus' request Tuesday and to proceed with the lawsuit. A trial is scheduled for March.

"I could just say, `Hallelujah,"' Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said Wednesday. "It was very obliging of the judge to let it proceed."

Charlie Harball, the attorney representing the Knights of Columbus, said he had anticipated the judge's ruling but he believed the motion to dismiss had compelled the atheists to produce a person as they are required.

"If we hadn't filed the motion in the first place, we still might not have an individual named," Harball said. "It's kind of forcing people to do what they're supposed to do."

Gaylor said they did not name anyone in the original lawsuit because the foundation wanted to protect that person from any negative response from others in the community.

"We just want to deflect attention away from him. We're at least long distance. We know how heated it gets," Gaylor said.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed the lawsuit in February, arguing the U.S. Forest Service is unconstitutionally sanctioning the 57-year-old statue maintained by the Knights of Columbus. The statue was originally conceived by World War II veterans who saw similar shrines while fighting in the mountains of Europe.

Several out-of-state conservative and religious groups have pledged their support in defending the statue's existence on its 25-by-25 foot patch of land, saying it represents the history and heritage of the region.

The Forest Service initially decided last year not to reauthorize a special-use permit for the statue, but reversed that decision and said its historic nature allowed it to remain.

Attorneys for the Forest Service said in court filings they had no position on the Knights of Columbus' request to dismiss the lawsuit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/29/judge-rules-atheist-court-case-seeking-removal-jesus-statue-meant-as-world-war/?test=latestnews


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on November 30, 2012, 10:18:10 AM
Why are some atheists so hypersensitive about something they don't believe in?


Judge rules atheist court case seeking removal of Jesus statue meant as World War II memorial near Montana ski resort can continue
Published November 29, 2012
Associated Press

HELENA, Mont. –  A lawsuit seeking the removal of a Jesus statue near a Montana ski resort will go on after a national group of atheists and agnostics produced a local member who says he is offended by the religious symbol whenever he swooshes down the slopes.

The Knights of Columbus and four individuals had asked a judge to throw out the legal challenge because the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation had not named anyone actually harmed by the statue on federal land next to Whitefish Mountain Resort.

Without such a person, the Knights of Columbus argued, the foundation had no right to bring the lawsuit.

So the foundation found William Cox, an atheist who lives 15 miles from the northwestern Montana resort. Cox submitted a statement that says he frequently goes to Whitefish and has skied many times past the statue, which he considers religious and offensive.

That was good enough for U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen to deny the Knights of Columbus' request Tuesday and to proceed with the lawsuit. A trial is scheduled for March.

"I could just say, `Hallelujah,"' Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said Wednesday. "It was very obliging of the judge to let it proceed."

Charlie Harball, the attorney representing the Knights of Columbus, said he had anticipated the judge's ruling but he believed the motion to dismiss had compelled the atheists to produce a person as they are required.

"If we hadn't filed the motion in the first place, we still might not have an individual named," Harball said. "It's kind of forcing people to do what they're supposed to do."

Gaylor said they did not name anyone in the original lawsuit because the foundation wanted to protect that person from any negative response from others in the community.

"We just want to deflect attention away from him. We're at least long distance. We know how heated it gets," Gaylor said.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed the lawsuit in February, arguing the U.S. Forest Service is unconstitutionally sanctioning the 57-year-old statue maintained by the Knights of Columbus. The statue was originally conceived by World War II veterans who saw similar shrines while fighting in the mountains of Europe.

Several out-of-state conservative and religious groups have pledged their support in defending the statue's existence on its 25-by-25 foot patch of land, saying it represents the history and heritage of the region.

The Forest Service initially decided last year not to reauthorize a special-use permit for the statue, but reversed that decision and said its historic nature allowed it to remain.

Attorneys for the Forest Service said in court filings they had no position on the Knights of Columbus' request to dismiss the lawsuit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/29/judge-rules-atheist-court-case-seeking-removal-jesus-statue-meant-as-world-war/?test=latestnews



I'd probably take offense to the Gov ignoring the seperation of church and state and endorsing no religion.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: The Abdominal Snoman on December 04, 2012, 10:41:35 PM
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.  - Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein couldn't figure out women but Sean Connery could :-\


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on February 19, 2013, 11:23:27 PM
Agnostics RULE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on February 23, 2013, 03:59:55 PM
 :o


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: stingray on February 24, 2013, 12:56:10 AM
:o

It's the first time I've ever seen ekul post antichristain posts.

Did you go to any wilders lectures in aus ekul? Did anyone attack him?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Phillip Rhee on February 24, 2013, 03:36:22 PM
“Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” - Psalms 94:16


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on February 24, 2013, 06:35:13 PM
“Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” - Psalms 94:16
That is a typo, it should read "The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Phillip Rhee on February 24, 2013, 06:40:04 PM
That is a typo, it should read "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

There you go, you just told a foully flagrant lie (which I corrected above) and implicated yourself further in the snare of sin and lawlessness. Why am I not surprised to see atheists lie since atheism is one giant lie itself? No, there's no typo and you know it because these verses rightly single you out and neatly condemn you, you fool (that's just what the Scripture says about you). Even if your lie were taken seriously, that just means there is a God and humans are fools and wicked sinners which is true (in a sense).


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Phillip Rhee on February 24, 2013, 07:11:38 PM
That is a typo, it should read "The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Here's a must-see video for all you atheists/agnostics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P9AUV8WDJM


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Necrosis on February 26, 2013, 01:47:00 PM
Here's a must-see video for all you atheists/agnostics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P9AUV8WDJM

dude sounds like a retard, his use of the english language is downright upsetting.

Anyway to his analogy of aliens and god, I suppose those who do believe in aliens pose no real threat to the public at large, there is no centralized office like the vatican, there is no movement against gay rights based on alien belief. There were no crusades, no jihads in the name of aliens, no child molestation, no tax exempt status etc.

I suppose to a stupid person it appears arguing against aliens and god are one in the same, however, upon further inspection it is obvious one is much more intransigent and problematic.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on February 26, 2013, 02:08:41 PM
The great JUJU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0klSfx--n8


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on February 27, 2013, 04:50:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: bigbobs on February 27, 2013, 05:29:26 PM
 :)


Title: The trouble with atheism
Post by: stingray on March 20, 2013, 04:39:20 PM
From the highly-acclaimed Dispatches current affairs show comes a comprehensive look at the history of atheism and whether it can rightly be considered as the rational alternative to religion. Award-winning journalist Rod Liddle speaks to the world's most renowned scientists, theologians and philosophers and asks them the questions we have always wanted to ask ourselves. These include what happened before the Big Bang? Can Richard Dawkins really contend that the nature of our religious beliefs can best be compared to the spreading of a flu virus? Liddle weighs up the evidence from all sides and the answers that are presented throw up many thought-provoking arguments which reflect on our contemporary society, our history and human nature itself.

http://www.smh.com.au/tv/Religion/The-Trouble-with-Atheism-4201203.html


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: a_ahmed on March 21, 2013, 09:02:40 AM
Not authorized to view in Canada :( Stupid content control.  ::)


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Man of Steel on March 21, 2013, 09:49:09 AM
No worries it was also unavailable here in Texas LOL! 

Too bad, sounded interesting.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Radical Plato on March 25, 2013, 04:16:04 AM
From the highly-acclaimed Dispatches current affairs show comes a comprehensive look at the history of atheism and whether it can rightly be considered as the rational alternative to religion. Award-winning journalist Rod Liddle speaks to the world's most renowned scientists, theologians and philosophers and asks them the questions we have always wanted to ask ourselves. These include what happened before the Big Bang? Can Richard Dawkins really contend that the nature of our religious beliefs can best be compared to the spreading of a flu virus? Liddle weighs up the evidence from all sides and the answers that are presented throw up many thought-provoking arguments which reflect on our contemporary society, our history and human nature itself.

http://www.smh.com.au/tv/Religion/The-Trouble-with-Atheism-4201203.html
LOL you are promoting a documentary hosted by a man who described Muslims as SAVAGES.  The documentary itself advocates agnosticism.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: stingray on March 25, 2013, 01:43:34 PM
 
Agnostics logically unsound and intellectually cowardly

Agnosticism has a certain appeal as a more moderate form of atheism. Agnosticism, for our purposes, refers to the belief that the existence (or lack thereof) of god is unknowable.  I’ve generally found that theists tend to have more respect for agnostics due to their holding of a more “reasonable” position. However, this is misguided: When it comes to the belief in god, agnosticism is logically unsound at best and intellectually cowardly at worst. Many agnostics are cowardly in the sense that they use agnosticism as a cop-out for not thinking hard about religious questions. Many agnostics do not actually deal with the epistemological question of whether we—as humans with reason—can know whether there is a god; Rather, they deal with the subjective personal question of whether they believe in a god: “Do you believe in god?” “I don’t know!” And, because agnosticism is a more socially acceptable position to hold, there is an incentive not to think.
 

However, there are agnostics that actually make arguments for agnosticism. Past thinkers have demonstrated that these arguments are flawed but agnosticism has been popular enough that it is valuable to be reminded of the argument against agnosticism. Agnostics believe that the existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable. Thomas Huxley wrote how he came to develop the term:
 

“When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain ‘gnosis,’–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble…So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of ‘agnostic.’ It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the ‘gnostic’ of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.”
 
The most effective way to respond to agnosticism is through reductio ad absurdum. If we ought to be agnostic on the existence of God because there is no way to disprove his existence, then we ought to be agnostic towards a lot of seemingly ridiculous things. We could start in the domain of religion: For one, if we are agnostic regarding the existence of a single god, the same argument holds for multiple gods. So, we must, to be consistent, be agnostic toward polytheism. Additionally, what about the argument that gravity is not simply caused by a really large number of ridiculously strong invisible fairies dressed in drag pushing down on you and other objects? Using the argument from agnosticism, this cannot be disproved so we need to maintain an agnostic stance…which is absurd.
 
The problem is that agnostics misapply the scientific method.  Bertrand Russell puts it best when discussing his famous teapot example:  Russell offers the example of a small (basically invisible given current technology) teapot between Earth and Mars revolving around the sun. Russell claims, “But if I were to go on to say that [the teapot exists], since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” The presumption underlying Russell’s argument is that the burden of proving a deity’s existence lies with the theist. It makes little sense that the nonbeliever has a burden to disprove seemingly absurd arguments, whether they refer to a teapot, invisible beings, or a belief in god. In all other realms of science, the burden of proof lies with the individual who is making the assertion. Why should it be any different when it comes to religious matters?


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: stingray on March 25, 2013, 01:44:13 PM

Refuting the agnostic argument
 
Agnosticism is starting to become quite popular these days; everyone seems to be seeking refuge in it. Its perceived to be the safest route for the secular man. For those unfamiliar with it, agnosticism is basically the belief that there is no way to know whether or not there is a God. The agnostic therefore neither believes nor disbelieves in God, since both the theist and the atheist fail to conclusively prove the existence of one. There are different forms of agnosticism with varying definitions (e.g. ignosticism); but at the end it boils to the agnostic being someone who refrains from taking a stand and defends his ignorance.
 
Here’s the problem with the entire agnostic world view. It is based on one fundamentally flawed precept; and that is the assumption that the proof for God is an empirical one. It rests on the belief that if there was to be a proof for God then it would be very much like a philosophical or scientific proof which could be repeated by any one at anytime and would always yield the same result. Since nothing like that exists, the agnostic ignorantly yet confidently says, ‘There’s no way to know’.
 
What the agnostic fails to realize is that empirical proofs exist for things that are confined to the material world; things to which the laws of nature apply, things that are within the realm of human comprehension. God by definition is far beyond all this. How then does one expect to find an empirical proof for something that is metaphysical? How then does one apply science to the One that created science?
 
The proof for God is not an empirical one but an experiential one. It is not like a mathematical proof that is based on fundamental axioms rather it is an experiential proof like the proof for love. How would one prove that love exists? Certainly not by running scientific experiments and by debating with philosophers. We all know that love exists since it is a phenomenon that we’ve all experienced.
 
In the same way God cannot be proven through abstract proofs and speculative theology as Imam Al-Ghazali once said. Faith is something that is realized through contemplation and experience. The phenomenon of faith and the issue of finding God simply can’t be treated as a mere philosophical problem to which an abstract proof is sufficient.

Hypothetically speaking, let’s say I was to give you a concrete proof for God’s existence right now. Assume that I’ve told you what it was and you see no way of arguing against it. It’s foolproof; flawless. Would you all of a sudden start believing in God just because of an argument you can’t rebut? Would you change you entire lifestyle and live in accordance with God’s will just because of one argument? Most people won’t. You believe in God when you realize that He exists, not when you are told He exists.
 
The issue of faith is directly related to experience. Finding faith and God is a journey that is ought to be undertaken; it requires a combination of the mind and the heart. Its not about blindly following faith or relying entirely on your brains; it’s the convergence of the two in perfect harmony.

There are numerous evidences of God all around, the greatest proof for the Creator is creation itself. The only ones who will see these evidences and accept them are the ones that will sincerely seek God, those who look for the truth. God in the Quran constantly pushes the reader to ponder over the world around him and to realize the beauty of God’s creation. He further says in a hadith qudsi, “Take one step towards Me, I will take ten steps towards you. Walk towards me and I will run towards you.” Those who ask God to guide them are the ones that will be guided. God is to be found where he claims to be, He doesn’t claim to be in books of philosophy but He does claim to be in the Quran. so I encourage you to read it.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Radical Plato on March 25, 2013, 06:44:25 PM
Do Muslims just hate everyone?  You are a confused individual, you encourage others to watch a documentary hosted my a man who sees Muslims as Savages and promotes agnosticism, and when you discover this truth then go on some crazy rant about agnostics and how their is absolute proof of God, which even the smartest theists disagree with you on.  Belief in GOD is faith based, it could be nothing more.  If their was absolute proof for GOD everyone would simply believe, in the same way everyone believes in Gravity when shown empirical evidence and witnesses it for them-self. 

The fact is you desperately want their to be a GOD, even if their isn't one, so you use conformational bias to gather information that proves GOD exists for YOU.  Choosing to believe in a GOD is cowardly and a sign that one cannot handle the reality of existence, just like in the Movie 'Life of pi' that suggested believing in GOD is a more comforting story even if it isn't True, so why not just believe in it.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: stingray on March 25, 2013, 07:10:26 PM
Dont sook you baby.

You rant about islam, so i rant about your agnoticsm.

Dont cry.

You dont even know what you are.First your a atheist, then your agnostic, then you say people who beleive in god are cowards.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Radical Plato on March 25, 2013, 07:15:43 PM
Dont sook you baby.

You rant about islam, so i rant about your agnoticsm.

Dont cry.

what is agnoticsm? And non-muslims have no need to cry, we are the dominant culture on the planet, and our religion doesn't even demand that we be dominant like Islam does.  It must suck to be part of a Religion that calls to dominate and not be dominated and yet they are The Western Worlds Bitch, we do whatever we want to Muslim Countries, if they piss us off, we invade and dominate them.  Muslims are a great source of comedy, they rage like they are tough guys, yet they crumble like an old wall when called to fight.  I actually feel sorry for you, like I said, it is my compassion for humanity that sees me try and help you, you are a victim of Islam, you just don't recognise it.  I will continue trying to help you.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: stingray on March 25, 2013, 07:22:51 PM
what is agnoticsm? And non-muslims have no need to cry, we are the dominant culture on the planet, and our religion doesn't even demand that we be dominant like Islam does.  It must suck to be part of a Religion that calls to dominate and not be dominated and yet they are The Western Worlds Bitch, we do whatever we want to Muslim Countries, if they piss us off, we invade and dominate them.  Muslims are a great source of comedy, they rage like they are tough guys, yet they crumble like an old wall when called to fight.  I actually feel sorry for you, like I said, it is my compassion for humanity that sees me try and help you, you are a victim of Islam, you just don't recognise it.  I will continue trying to help you.

Your compassion?

Joke right?


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Radical Plato on March 25, 2013, 07:27:47 PM
Your compassion?

Joke right?
No. Muslims need tons of compassion, for they will treat you violently and with aggression, even when trying to help them.  Saving Muslims is like  helping an injured cat, they will lash out at you.  Like I have said before, must people just look at Muslims as dirty, ignorant potential terrorists that are beyond help and leave them in their decrepit state, I on the other hand believe that underneath their hard shell of hatred and contempt for life and humanity, their is a glimmer of hope, much like Luke Skywalker viewed his father Darth Vader, Luke never gave up on that evil old bastard.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Man of Steel on March 25, 2013, 07:52:11 PM
Believe it or not, the Lord Jesus Christ has performed a wonderful work in my heart and I truly care about the Muslims, agnostics, atheists, Christians, undecideds, etc....on this board and want desperately for all to experience the love of Christ in their lives like I have.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: stingray on March 25, 2013, 09:05:37 PM
Believe it or not, the Lord Jesus Christ has performed a wonderful work in my heart and I truly care about the Muslims, agnostics, atheists, Christians, undecideds, etc....on this board and want desperately for all to experience the love of Christ in their lives like I have.

But jesus didnt care about everybody,

Jesus only came to the jewish tribes, not the whole world to be followed,


Matthew 10:5-6


These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not,But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


And he didnt care about everybody, because again he came only to help the jews,


Matthew 15:22-26

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
 
 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
 
 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
 
 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
 
 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Radical Plato on March 25, 2013, 09:13:54 PM
But jesus didnt care about everybody,

Jesus only came to the jewish tribes, not the whole world to be followed,


Matthew 10:5-6


These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not,But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


And he didnt care about everybody, because again he came only to help the jews,


Matthew 15:22-26

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
 
 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
 
 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
 
 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
 
 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

^^^^ This is why MUSLIMS are HATED ! Somebody reaches out to them and true to Muslim form they do everything to heap scorn and hate on them.  ISLAM = HATE


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: stingray on March 25, 2013, 09:21:04 PM
^^^^ This is why MUSLIMS are HATED ! Somebody reaches out to them and true to Muslim form they do everything to heap scorn and hate on them.  ISLAM = HATE

Was I talking to you?

I don't hate Christianity, I'd be happy to have dinner with mos.just because I don't agree with the Christian doctrine, doesn't mean I hate them.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: stingray on March 25, 2013, 09:29:13 PM
^^^^ This is why MUSLIMS are HATED ! Somebody reaches out to them and true to Muslim form they do everything to heap scorn and hate on them.  ISLAM = HATE

Why you defending Christianity?

Didn't you say people who follow god are cowards?

So are Christians cowards?


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Radical Plato on March 25, 2013, 09:56:54 PM
Why you defending Christianity?

Didn't you say people who follow god are cowards?

So are Christians cowards?
I am defending decency, something Muslims are not familiar with.  And regardless of what I feel towards people who believe in a GOD, Man of Steel is actually influenced in a positive way by his religion, he has used it as a vehicle towards becoming a better human being, more tolerant and open, he overtly shows compassion and kindness.  These are qualities that Muslims lack, Muslims present themselves as arrogant, insecure, envious, petty and violent, and to top it off they have zero self awareness, this combination proves that ISLAM negatively impacts on a humans character, it separates them from humanity and leads them to be despised for their wickedness, ignorance and intolerance.  If ISLAM was responsible for creating good people, nobody would have a problem with it, but ISLAM and arseholes are drawn to one another like moths to a flame.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Radical Plato on March 25, 2013, 09:59:08 PM
Was I talking to you?

I don't hate Christianity, I'd be happy to have dinner with mos.just because I don't agree with the Christian doctrine, doesn't mean I hate them.
A Christian offered you Goodwill, and then you immediately responded by Insulting the son of his GOD, something a Muslim would want to kill you for.  Muslims hypocrisy knows no limits.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: a_ahmed on March 25, 2013, 10:06:24 PM
lol at e-kul trying to act like he loves christians when he is just trying to attack islam and muslims in his rage. Turns around and goes and talks crap about christians once Muslims are not around. Typical. You've already made filthy comments and posted filthy pictures ridiculing all faiths in the atheist thread before. You're such a sociopathic psychopathic freak man. You need some professional help.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Radical Plato on March 25, 2013, 10:08:12 PM
lol at e-kul trying to act like he loves christians when he is just trying to attack islam and muslims in his rage. Turns around and goes and talks crap about christians once Muslims are not around. Typical. You've already made filthy comments and posted filthy pictures ridiculing all faiths in the atheist thread before. You're such a sociopathic psychopathic freak man. You need some professional help.
I own your mind a-ahmed.  The moderators have told me what a cry baby sook you are and you have even had me blocked from some of your threads (a sure sign of my dominance over you)  Real Men can tolerate criticism and a difference of opinion, Muslims act like spoilt children when confronted with such things.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Man of Steel on March 26, 2013, 07:01:30 AM
But jesus didnt care about everybody,

Jesus only came to the jewish tribes, not the whole world to be followed,


Matthew 10:5-6


These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not,But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


And he didnt care about everybody, because again he came only to help the jews,


Matthew 15:22-26

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
 
 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
 
 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
 
 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
 
 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Hey stingray,

I think what would be helpful here is a bit of context.   

Christ left divine glory and limited himself to that of an ordinary man in order to live the perfect human life and become the perfect sacrifice for all.  Christ perfectly lived out Mosaic law and fulfilled OT prophecy concerning the coming Messiah.  The law of Moses was meant to reveal sin in our lives, while the gospel’s new covenant is meant to saves us from that sin (Christ's sinless life and perfect death and resurrection).  Make no mistake that Christ’s kingdom was established through his chosen people in the Israelites.  That said, Christ began to establish his ministry by first narrowing his focus around the most potentially, receptive audience; in this case, the very same Jews the initial kingdom was established upon.  The word gospel means “good news” because Christ came to save the world, but first he came to fulfill the law by living the perfect, sinless life in order to become the perfect sacrifice and establish a new covenant in which jew and gentile alike are saved by grace through faith…this is the good news for all.  These verses didn’t permanently limit the scope of his ministry to only the Jews…they simply outline the initial scope of his ministry.  The NT clearly affirms again and again that Christ came to the save the world, but that his followers would be the salt and light in the world.  Again, Christ just started his ministry focusing on  the audience through which prophecy was established and would be fulfilled.  Then he established the new covenant for the world with his death on Calvary’s cross and resurrection thereafter.   

The passage about the Canaanite woman emphasizes a test of faith and the Canaanite woman passed with flying colors because the verses that were excluded in your previous post indicate that Christ immediately healed her daughter and fully acknowledged the Canaanite woman’s faith in him.  It shows that despite Christ’s initial focus in his ministry on the jews that any that came to him in faith would be accepted as that was the final and complete scope and purpose of his overall ministry….to save the world. 

Here are the missing verses from the passage:
Matthew 15:27-28
27 She replied, “That’s true, Lord, but even dogs are allowed to eat the scraps that fall beneath their masters’ table.”
28 “Dear woman,” Jesus said to her, “your faith is great. Your request is granted.” And her daughter was instantly healed.


Luke 24:40-49
40 As he spoke, he showed them his hands and his feet.

41 Still they stood there in disbelief, filled with joy and wonder. Then he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he ate it as they watched.

44 Then he said, “When I was with you before, I told you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. 46 And he said, “Yes, it was written long ago that the Messiah would suffer and die and rise from the dead on the third day. 47 It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of his name to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.’ 48 You are witnesses of all these things.

49 “And now I will send the Holy Spirit, just as my Father promised. But stay here in the city until the Holy Spirit comes and fills you with power from heaven.”


John 3:17
17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Man of Steel on March 26, 2013, 08:27:43 AM


I see what you did there.   :D


Title: Re: The trouble with atheism
Post by: Man of Steel on March 26, 2013, 08:51:11 AM
I don't recall calling ahmed a "cry baby sook"....I didn't actually know what the term "sook" meant....had to google that LOL.   Admittedly the reports to moderator were becoming excessive, but the back and forth nonsense on top of that caused me to lock the thread temporarily.  

Honestly, had Ron addressed the reports himself he might've deleted the thread altogether and simply been done with it.  He's done it before and will do it again...so consider that possibility when reporting to moderator.  Sometimes you'll get more than you bargained for and there's nothing myself or butterbean can do about it.  Ron doesn't have the time to cater to everyone's little "butthurts".

Hey, mods have locked and deleted threads on me before for gettin outta hand....I used to be a lead Squad member afterall LOL!!

You know, E-kul and I don't agree on everything (and may never will), but I can speak to the man without gettin crazy.  I understand him quite a bit better now.....makes a world of difference.  I've made the mistake of not doing so in the past and it's cost me.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on March 31, 2013, 03:36:18 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/481172_10151509829405155_2105811229_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p206x206/418955_10151505365360155_1346075494_n.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on April 21, 2013, 02:33:58 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/480703_200752650057480_56940570_n.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on April 21, 2013, 02:38:21 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/263811_201036536695758_2090277485_n.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on April 21, 2013, 02:40:23 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/44173_200111223454956_364906434_n.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on April 21, 2013, 10:30:58 AM
For those who apologise for Muslims and claim their is moderate Islam, watch this BBC documentary about how ISLAM is deliberately deceiving others and presenting themselves as moderates yet preaching extremist attitudes and a goal of overtaking Western nations.  This is serious business and should not be taken lightly, to do so will only see many more innocent people in the west killed by what you think are ordinary moderate Muslims.

This is the second documentary made, I couldn't find the first one simply called "undercover mosque", but if you can, watch that one as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njRKaX0ORuI

and watch here after the Government and the Police were forced to apologise to the filmakers after they slandered the documentary.  Muslims did the usual trick of pretending they were the victims after they were caught out lecturing the most bile and disgusting Islamic teachings, and that the film-makers had unfairly edited the documentary to portray them in a bad light.  After the producers of the film took the government to Court, they won, and the Crown apologised.  It is truly sad that well meaning but naive people keep apologising for extremists, but that is the situation we find ourselves in, my only hope is that one day the trusting attitude of the West finally comes to recognise the deliberate deceptiveness of ISLAM and how they have been duped by Muslims.  Hopefully before to many more people get slaughtered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuW2NMO_EgI


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: stingray on May 08, 2013, 10:09:59 PM
So atheists do have a heart.

Stephen Hawking boycotting Israel in solidarity with Palestine


Cambridge - The world's most famous scientist has announced that he will boycott an upcoming Israeli conference to show solidarity with Palestinian academics and protest Israeli's oppressive occupation of Palestine.
 
The BBC reports that renowned British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking is supporting the worldwide academic boycott of Israel on the "unanimous advice" of his Palestinian contacts.

According to a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP):
 Professor Stephen Hawking has declined his invitation to attend the Israeli Presidential Conference Facing Tomorrow 2013, due to take place in Jerusalem on 18-20 June. This is his independent decision to respect the boycott, based on his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there.
 
Hawking, 71, had originally planned to attend the conference and criticize the Israeli government in a speech, but decided not to travel to Israel. Part of the reason for this is that he is in very poor health.
 
Hawking joins a growing number of British personalities who have rejected invitations to visit Israel.
 
Former Pink Floyd front man Roger Waters is the most famous Briton to boycott Israel, accusing the Israeli government of "running an apartheid regime" and "laying waste to most of Lebanon."
 
The Israel apartheid analogy has been made by South African apartheid survivor and Nobel Peace laureate Desmond Tutu, as well as his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winners Jimmy Carter, the former US president, and Mairead Maguire, an Irish peace activist. Some critics go even further and accuse Israel of ethnically cleansing Palestinians by continued illegal settler colonization of the occupied West Bank.
 
In 2010, rocker Elvis Costello cancelled two scheduled concerts in Israel, citing the "deplorable conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians."
 
Super-producer Brian Eno, singer Annie Lennox-- who described Israel's 2008-09 Gaza offensive as "pornography of destruction"-- and award-winning filmmaker Mike Leigh have also boycotted Israel.
 Last year, American music legend Stevie Wonder also canceled a scheduled US fund-raising performance benefiting the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
 
In the academic world, the Teachers' Union of Ireland last month became the first European lecturers' association to back a boycott of Israel, denouncing "Israeli militarism, occupation and apartheid." In the United States, the Association for Asian American Studies also voted last month to support a boycott of Israeli academic institutions "in protest of the illegal occupation of Palestine," among other crimes and human rights violations. The group is the first US-based academic association to support the boycot, divestment and sanction (BDS) movement.
 
The Raw Story reports that although Hawking has visited Israel four times in the past, most recently in 2006, he has since become a vocal critic of the Jewish State's policies and actions. He called the 2008-09 'Cast Lead' invasion of Gaza "plain out of proportion," adding that "the situation is like that of (apartheid) South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue."
 
Israel supporters reacted angrily to Hawking's decision to boycott Israel.

"The academic boycott against Israel is in our view outrageous and improper, certainly for someone for whom the spirit of liberty lies at the basis of his human and academic mission," Israel Maimon, chairman of the Israeli Presidential Conference, said in a statement.
 
"Rather than caving in to pressure from political extremists, active participation in such events is a far more constructive way to promote progress and peace," Daniel Taub, the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom, is quoted by the BBC.
 
Shurat HaDin, an Israeli legal center that represents victims of terrorism, called Hawking a hypocrite for boycotting Israel while using Israeli technology in his communication system.
 
"Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his whole intellectual accomplishment," a representative of Shurat HaDin is quoted in the Guardian. "His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet."


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on May 09, 2013, 12:19:10 AM
So atheists do have a heart.

Stephen Hawking boycotting Israel in solidarity with Palestine


Cambridge - The world's most famous scientist has announced that he will boycott an upcoming Israeli conference to show solidarity with Palestinian academics and protest Israeli's oppressive occupation of Palestine.
 
The BBC reports that renowned British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking is supporting the worldwide academic boycott of Israel on the "unanimous advice" of his Palestinian contacts.

According to a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP):
 Professor Stephen Hawking has declined his invitation to attend the Israeli Presidential Conference Facing Tomorrow 2013, due to take place in Jerusalem on 18-20 June. This is his independent decision to respect the boycott, based on his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there.
 
Hawking, 71, had originally planned to attend the conference and criticize the Israeli government in a speech, but decided not to travel to Israel. Part of the reason for this is that he is in very poor health.
 
Hawking joins a growing number of British personalities who have rejected invitations to visit Israel.
 
Former Pink Floyd front man Roger Waters is the most famous Briton to boycott Israel, accusing the Israeli government of "running an apartheid regime" and "laying waste to most of Lebanon."
 
The Israel apartheid analogy has been made by South African apartheid survivor and Nobel Peace laureate Desmond Tutu, as well as his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winners Jimmy Carter, the former US president, and Mairead Maguire, an Irish peace activist. Some critics go even further and accuse Israel of ethnically cleansing Palestinians by continued illegal settler colonization of the occupied West Bank.
 
In 2010, rocker Elvis Costello cancelled two scheduled concerts in Israel, citing the "deplorable conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians."
 
Super-producer Brian Eno, singer Annie Lennox-- who described Israel's 2008-09 Gaza offensive as "pornography of destruction"-- and award-winning filmmaker Mike Leigh have also boycotted Israel.
 Last year, American music legend Stevie Wonder also canceled a scheduled US fund-raising performance benefiting the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
 
In the academic world, the Teachers' Union of Ireland last month became the first European lecturers' association to back a boycott of Israel, denouncing "Israeli militarism, occupation and apartheid." In the United States, the Association for Asian American Studies also voted last month to support a boycott of Israeli academic institutions "in protest of the illegal occupation of Palestine," among other crimes and human rights violations. The group is the first US-based academic association to support the boycot, divestment and sanction (BDS) movement.
 
The Raw Story reports that although Hawking has visited Israel four times in the past, most recently in 2006, he has since become a vocal critic of the Jewish State's policies and actions. He called the 2008-09 'Cast Lead' invasion of Gaza "plain out of proportion," adding that "the situation is like that of (apartheid) South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue."
 
Israel supporters reacted angrily to Hawking's decision to boycott Israel.

"The academic boycott against Israel is in our view outrageous and improper, certainly for someone for whom the spirit of liberty lies at the basis of his human and academic mission," Israel Maimon, chairman of the Israeli Presidential Conference, said in a statement.
 
"Rather than caving in to pressure from political extremists, active participation in such events is a far more constructive way to promote progress and peace," Daniel Taub, the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom, is quoted by the BBC.
 
Shurat HaDin, an Israeli legal center that represents victims of terrorism, called Hawking a hypocrite for boycotting Israel while using Israeli technology in his communication system.
 
"Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his whole intellectual accomplishment," a representative of Shurat HaDin is quoted in the Guardian. "His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet."

He pulled out due to medical reasons.  This is just more Muslim lies and propaganda, when will you gullible Muslims wake up to the way deceitful Muslims work.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/bds-lied-about-stephen-hawking-joining-anti-israel-academic-boycott/ (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/bds-lied-about-stephen-hawking-joining-anti-israel-academic-boycott/)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: stingray on May 09, 2013, 12:28:31 AM
He pulled out due to medical reasons.  This is just more Muslim lies and propaganda, when will you gullible Muslims wake up to the way deceitful Muslims work.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/bds-lied-about-stephen-hawking-joining-anti-israel-academic-boycott/ (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/bds-lied-about-stephen-hawking-joining-anti-israel-academic-boycott/)

Am i the journalist that wrote it?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on May 11, 2013, 05:14:46 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu-YiN-mnpg


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: stingray on May 11, 2013, 02:22:17 PM
Typical e-kul.

You ask him a question, when he cant defend it he posts up a video/article which has nothing to do with the first issue in the first place.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on May 11, 2013, 07:02:26 PM
lol its been reaffirmed that hawking pulled out for anti-israel reasons not for 'health' reasons or any other bs that the media tried to portray hence since theyve been on a barrage even in local newspapers here in canada and elsewhere in pro-zionist mainstream media targetting and attacking him.

The typical anti-semetism bullshit card is pulled when israel is criticized. Bunch of zio-trash


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on May 11, 2013, 07:03:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXmlyCGy0bk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gANQiR9CukE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moYK2XnD2XI

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/59230_550996254922836_1513948958_n.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYG7GR13DnU


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on May 11, 2013, 07:04:38 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/944635_601007793245509_385539587_n.jpg)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/217075_600658716613750_1178139940_n.jpg)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/942143_600651199947835_336412003_n.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on May 11, 2013, 11:14:05 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/7756_375739575877150_1970419822_n.jpg)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/216327_375696112548163_1049149723_n.jpg)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/941880_374648525986255_1269789177_n.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: stingray on May 12, 2013, 02:07:26 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/dFxPiFM.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on May 18, 2013, 12:15:05 AM
UK: WOMEN CONVERTS TO ISLAM ‘DISCOVER’ ABUSE AND OPPRESSION

University of Cambridge is revealing the depth of the human idiocy trapped in absurd liberalism: Western women ‘discovering’ that their conversion to Islam ends in physical abuse and oppression! The Times has given a preamble to a new study on Islamic conversions. This should be an u-duh moment for all the liberals choosing to convert to the most violent, oppressive and evil cult on earth. These women have no excuses for their new-found discovery. And what is that discovery? That after converting to Islam, they are subject to abuse by their husbands that they don’t want to report! They also complain about oppression against women encouraged by mosques. Duh…!

Media is full of reports about Muslim conduct not only in their home countries, but around the world. Not a single Muslim society on the face of the earth have democracy, freedom or equality. Then, how utterly stupid can you be to convert to a faith that loves to abuse and rape women?

Sorry, but there is no pity from our side. Let these liberal learn reality the hard way. For years and years they have been screaming in defense of Islam, and now they learn that all that they heard from those they accused of bigotry was actually the truth and nothing but the truth.

The conversion to Islam in the UK where this study was made is actually tiny, with only 5,000 conversions per year of which nearly 80% leave Islam in less than three years. Media is blowing these small numbers out of proportion (mainly stemming from Muslim journalists and regurgitated endlessly) claiming that Islam is the ‘fastest’ growing religion. There are no conversion ceremonies in Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism and therefore it is impossible to compare. The other faiths are free of choice and do not impose imprisoned regimes  on their followers and cannot therefore be measured in the same respect. The growth to Islam in the UK is mainly by birth rate, by asylum, by general immigration, by illegal immigration, and by  forced prison conversion, with a tiny number of 5,000 a year by voluntary conversion.

In Muslim countries minorities are converting by force to avoid death threats and execution. In contrast, the church has found that over 6 million Muslims PER YEAR convert to Christianity in Africa alone. The numbers are staggering in other parts of the Muslim world. We have number for other countries too and you’d be shocked at the numbers shared by the Church, but we do not wish to publish them because persecution of Muslims for apostasy are very high and relentless in these countries. To protect them we will keep the numbers secret.

Women who convert to Islam often find themselves at the “nexus of a clash of civilisations,” according to a new report. Converts become confused between what is faith and what is culture in their new Muslim community, with “dress etiquette” one of the first challenges.
The issue of domestic violence was also a problem, with some converts finding it harder to escape an abusive husband because they were reluctant to admit to such problems after changing their faith.

The report, Narratives of Conversion to Islam, was based on the experience of 47 female converts to Islam and published by the Centre of Islamic Studies and the New Muslims Project.

It said that non-Muslims are often perplexed as to why a woman would choose to embrace “a backward faith that oppresses her”.
According to some estimates, there could be as many as 100,000 converts to Islam in Britain. High-profile converts include Tony Blair’s sister-in-law Lauren Booth and the journalist Yvonne Ridley.

The study included women who converted to Islam from all faiths and none, including atheism, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism.
Family reactions were often negative, with one woman thrown out of the house by her father who accused her of joining a “barbaric and uncivilised” faith. Her brother went further and joined the British National Party “to prevent the further Islamification of Britain”. Neighbours were told the daughter had died.

Wearing a headscarf, hijab or even the full niqab dress was often seen as a “rite of passage” by converts and a way of “belonging” to their new community, but others chose not to wear any outward sign of their new faith for fear of attracting negative attention.
For some, the headscarf changed their status in society from white to “non-white”, the report said.

One woman described converting to Islam at 16, leaving home because this upset her mother and then entering an arranged marriage with a man who became abusive.

When she sought help she was accused of bringing “dishonour” on her husband’s family. She escaped with her two children but they were then kidnapped and taken to India by her husband and she has not now seen them for nine years.

The women in the study also criticised the Sharia Councils and courts operating in Britain, fearing they placed their rights as women in jeopardy.

Overall, the convert experience was a mixture of acceptance and rejection, integration and isolation, the report said.
It described a new British Islam emerging, particularly among children of converts, which is less reliant on the ethnic and cultural heritage of the early Muslim communities in the UK.

Harley Street physician Dr Annie Coxon, who converted to Islam from Catholicism 20 years ago and whose mother was American, said: “I have not had negative reactions to my change in religious faith from friends in the UK, but have had problems in the US with Homeland Security and with my brother and his wife, related to the perception of Islam as inevitably linked with terrorism.

“Converts are not accepted within the Pakistani Muslim community in the UK because of their negative impression of colonialism.”
Yasir Suleiman, fonder of the Centre of Islamic Studies in Cambridge, said: “Conversion is a complex phenomenon. It is often full of joy and pain for the convert and her family and friends, regardless of the faith to which she converts, but no more so than when the faith is a maligned Islam and its followers.”


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: stingray on May 18, 2013, 04:17:25 AM
UK: WOMEN CONVERTS TO ISLAM ‘DISCOVER’ ABUSE AND OPPRESSION

University of Cambridge is revealing the depth of the human idiocy trapped in absurd liberalism: Western women ‘discovering’ that their conversion to Islam ends in physical abuse and oppression! The Times has given a preamble to a new study on Islamic conversions. This should be an u-duh moment for all the liberals choosing to convert to the most violent, oppressive and evil cult on earth. These women have no excuses for their new-found discovery. And what is that discovery? That after converting to Islam, they are subject to abuse by their husbands that they don’t want to report! They also complain about oppression against women encouraged by mosques. Duh…!

Media is full of reports about Muslim conduct not only in their home countries, but around the world. Not a single Muslim society on the face of the earth have democracy, freedom or equality. Then, how utterly stupid can you be to convert to a faith that loves to abuse and rape women?

Sorry, but there is no pity from our side. Let these liberal learn reality the hard way. For years and years they have been screaming in defense of Islam, and now they learn that all that they heard from those they accused of bigotry was actually the truth and nothing but the truth.

The conversion to Islam in the UK where this study was made is actually tiny, with only 5,000 conversions per year of which nearly 80% leave Islam in less than three years. Media is blowing these small numbers out of proportion (mainly stemming from Muslim journalists and regurgitated endlessly) claiming that Islam is the ‘fastest’ growing religion. There are no conversion ceremonies in Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism and therefore it is impossible to compare. The other faiths are free of choice and do not impose imprisoned regimes  on their followers and cannot therefore be measured in the same respect. The growth to Islam in the UK is mainly by birth rate, by asylum, by general immigration, by illegal immigration, and by  forced prison conversion, with a tiny number of 5,000 a year by voluntary conversion.

In Muslim countries minorities are converting by force to avoid death threats and execution. In contrast, the church has found that over 6 million Muslims PER YEAR convert to Christianity in Africa alone. The numbers are staggering in other parts of the Muslim world. We have number for other countries too and you’d be shocked at the numbers shared by the Church, but we do not wish to publish them because persecution of Muslims for apostasy are very high and relentless in these countries. To protect them we will keep the numbers secret.

Women who convert to Islam often find themselves at the “nexus of a clash of civilisations,” according to a new report. Converts become confused between what is faith and what is culture in their new Muslim community, with “dress etiquette” one of the first challenges.
The issue of domestic violence was also a problem, with some converts finding it harder to escape an abusive husband because they were reluctant to admit to such problems after changing their faith.

The report, Narratives of Conversion to Islam, was based on the experience of 47 female converts to Islam and published by the Centre of Islamic Studies and the New Muslims Project.

It said that non-Muslims are often perplexed as to why a woman would choose to embrace “a backward faith that oppresses her”.
According to some estimates, there could be as many as 100,000 converts to Islam in Britain. High-profile converts include Tony Blair’s sister-in-law Lauren Booth and the journalist Yvonne Ridley.

The study included women who converted to Islam from all faiths and none, including atheism, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism.
Family reactions were often negative, with one woman thrown out of the house by her father who accused her of joining a “barbaric and uncivilised” faith. Her brother went further and joined the British National Party “to prevent the further Islamification of Britain”. Neighbours were told the daughter had died.

Wearing a headscarf, hijab or even the full niqab dress was often seen as a “rite of passage” by converts and a way of “belonging” to their new community, but others chose not to wear any outward sign of their new faith for fear of attracting negative attention.
For some, the headscarf changed their status in society from white to “non-white”, the report said.

One woman described converting to Islam at 16, leaving home because this upset her mother and then entering an arranged marriage with a man who became abusive.

When she sought help she was accused of bringing “dishonour” on her husband’s family. She escaped with her two children but they were then kidnapped and taken to India by her husband and she has not now seen them for nine years.

The women in the study also criticised the Sharia Councils and courts operating in Britain, fearing they placed their rights as women in jeopardy.

Overall, the convert experience was a mixture of acceptance and rejection, integration and isolation, the report said.
It described a new British Islam emerging, particularly among children of converts, which is less reliant on the ethnic and cultural heritage of the early Muslim communities in the UK.

Harley Street physician Dr Annie Coxon, who converted to Islam from Catholicism 20 years ago and whose mother was American, said: “I have not had negative reactions to my change in religious faith from friends in the UK, but have had problems in the US with Homeland Security and with my brother and his wife, related to the perception of Islam as inevitably linked with terrorism.

“Converts are not accepted within the Pakistani Muslim community in the UK because of their negative impression of colonialism.”
Yasir Suleiman, fonder of the Centre of Islamic Studies in Cambridge, said: “Conversion is a complex phenomenon. It is often full of joy and pain for the convert and her family and friends, regardless of the faith to which she converts, but no more so than when the faith is a maligned Islam and its followers.”

Who was the author of that article?

Looks like the author was a moderator of a forum. He couldn't even put his real name up. Author=moderator lol.

Id like to see where he got his research and statistics from.

And you combined two articles which where separate articles.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on May 20, 2013, 10:19:09 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/s480x480/248003_306579252809020_1725360741_n.jpg)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on May 21, 2013, 06:10:02 AM
The man's body lies on a blanket striped in white and blue. He's wearing a dark brown tank top and a dark blue flowered sarong. Someone has tied his hands behind his back with rope. There are deep red gashes on his head and shoulders -- some of them presumably the wounds that ended his life.


The man in the photo is a Muslim. The people who killed him were almost certainly Buddhists. He was a victim in last fall's sectarian bloodshed in western Burma, which pitted members of the two religions against each other. The image comes from a new report by Human Rights Watch that carefully documents the violence that took some 200 lives and resulted in the forced displacement of some 125,000 people. (A more recent wave of violence within the past few weeks has taken some 40 additional lives and triggered another surge of refugees.) The report argues persuasively that state institutions, including the police, often stood by while Buddhist rioters went after their Muslim neighbors -- and in some cases may have even helped to organize the attacks. A mere 4 percent of Burma's population of Burma is Muslim, while well over 90 percent are Buddhists. Perhaps the fact that the government sided with the majority probably shouldn't have come as a surprise. (The allegations didn't stop the International Crisis Group, a leading western humanitarian organization, from giving an award to President Thein Sein earlier this week.)


But wait: Isn't Buddhism a religion that places respect for life and the embrace of peace at the very center of its worldview? The Buddha himself placed compassion at the root of his teachings, and in Burma itself, it was Buddhist monks who set the rigorously non-violent tone of the massive anti-government demonstrations back in 2007. The chants of the saffron-robed protestors were powerfully moving: "May all beings living to the East be free; all beings in the universe be free, free from fear, free from all distress!"

It turns out, sadly, that some Buddhist monks don't see this as a binding ethical imperative. Monks have been prominent among those inciting the recent bloodshed. The most notable is U Wirathu, a monk at a prominent monastery who's made a name for himself lately as an apologist for anti-Muslim sentiment and the organizer of the "969" movement, which has been issuing stickers and signs emblazoned with that number (which has symbolic significance for Burmese Buddhists) to identify businesses that refuse to serve Muslims -- exactly the kind of policy the monk is aiming to promote. He's said to have referred to himself as "the Buddhist Osama bin Laden." How can this sort of bigotry possibly be reconciled with the teachings of the Enlightened One?

I'm happy to say that there are plenty of other Buddhist monks in Burma who have been pushing back against their chauvinist colleagues. But to understand what's been happening, we also need to take a closer look at those who claim to be standing up for Buddhism even as they've doing things that don't seem to be easily reconcilable with their religion.

First of all, the notion of Buddhism as an inherently pacifist religion has a strong element of Western oversimplification. Buddhist teaching has never prohibited believers from fighting in defense of a just cause. As the scholars Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer show in their book Buddhist Warfare, Buddhists have participated in wars ever since their faith came into being. Militant monks have fought for Chinese rulers (and against them) for centuries. Japan's samurai warriors were ardent Buddhists, men who cited the Buddha's teachings on the impermanence of physical existence as a good argument for soldiering.

When the Dalai Lama urges his fellow Tibetans to maintain non-violence in their struggle against Chinese rule, his fans in the West tend to see this as a typically Buddhist attitude. But, as some astute observers have pointed out, the Dalai Lama's embrace of civil disobedience may owe as much to Gandhi and Martin Luther King as it does to his fellow believers. (Nor, intriguingly, did it stop His Holiness from approving the killing of Osama bin Laden, though he later qualified his position when it became clear that the al Qaeda leader was unarmed when he was shot.) Indeed, his religious authority hasn't been enough to prevent over 100 Tibetans from killing themselves as a protest against Chinese policy despite his injunctions against suicide. (Happily, in the wake of the Human Rights Watch report, he has been urging the monks in Burma to end the violence there.)

But doctrine is only part of the problem. All religions -- Buddhism included -- tend to create a powerful sense of collective identity among their followers. All of the great world religions emphasize the sanctity of human life, and strive to limit the use of violence to what's admissible in certain cases. But those careful distinctions tend to go out the window when a group of believers feels that its values are under threat.

As the current crisis in Burma demonstrates, modern Buddhists are just as susceptible to identity politics as anyone else. In March, police in Sri Lanka stood by as Buddhist monks led a mob that pillaged a Muslim-owned garment warehouse. Sri Lanka, which has been convulsed for years by a civil war between majority Buddhists and minority Tamils, is home to several hard-line Buddhist political movements, including something called the "Buddhist Strength Force," which has recently made a name for itself with vitriolic anti-Muslim rhetoric. "It is the monks who protect our country, religion, and race," said Sri Lankan Defense Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in a recent speech -- reinforcing suspicions that militant monks enjoy tacit government support.

The government in Thailand, meanwhile, has armed local Buddhist groups to counter a simmering Muslim insurgency in the south of the country. The militias, which are distinct from the regular army and the police, have the job of defending Buddhist communities against potential attacks -- and perhaps deepening the sectarian dimension in that long-running conflict.

What all three of these countries have in common is an ominous trend in which governments and religious institutions are lending support to destructive sectarian forces. Muslims may well bear some of the responsibility for the killings in Burma, but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that most of the violence was committed by far more numerous Buddhists who enjoyed crucial support from local officials and religious leaders.

None of this, of course, is to argue that Buddhists are uniquely evil. It's merely to point out that some of our idealized notions about the purity of Buddhism don't live up to real-world scrutiny. We shouldn't give Buddhist extremists a pass any more than we would their Muslim, Christian, or Jewish equivalents; otherwise we run the risk of becoming complicit in their crimes. Just because the conflicts they create are in far-away, exotic places is no excuse for complacency.

The world is too small for that.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on May 21, 2013, 06:25:25 AM
The man's body lies on a blanket striped in white and blue. He's wearing a dark brown tank top and a dark blue flowered sarong. Someone has tied his hands behind his back with rope. There are deep red gashes on his head and shoulders -- some of them presumably the wounds that ended his life.


The man in the photo is a Muslim. The people who killed him were almost certainly Buddhists. He was a victim in last fall's sectarian bloodshed in western Burma, which pitted members of the two religions against each other. The image comes from a new report by Human Rights Watch that carefully documents the violence that took some 200 lives and resulted in the forced displacement of some 125,000 people. (A more recent wave of violence within the past few weeks has taken some 40 additional lives and triggered another surge of refugees.) The report argues persuasively that state institutions, including the police, often stood by while Buddhist rioters went after their Muslim neighbors -- and in some cases may have even helped to organize the attacks. A mere 4 percent of Burma's population of Burma is Muslim, while well over 90 percent are Buddhists. Perhaps the fact that the government sided with the majority probably shouldn't have come as a surprise. (The allegations didn't stop the International Crisis Group, a leading western humanitarian organization, from giving an award to President Thein Sein earlier this week.)


But wait: Isn't Buddhism a religion that places respect for life and the embrace of peace at the very center of its worldview? The Buddha himself placed compassion at the root of his teachings, and in Burma itself, it was Buddhist monks who set the rigorously non-violent tone of the massive anti-government demonstrations back in 2007. The chants of the saffron-robed protestors were powerfully moving: "May all beings living to the East be free; all beings in the universe be free, free from fear, free from all distress!"

It turns out, sadly, that some Buddhist monks don't see this as a binding ethical imperative. Monks have been prominent among those inciting the recent bloodshed. The most notable is U Wirathu, a monk at a prominent monastery who's made a name for himself lately as an apologist for anti-Muslim sentiment and the organizer of the "969" movement, which has been issuing stickers and signs emblazoned with that number (which has symbolic significance for Burmese Buddhists) to identify businesses that refuse to serve Muslims -- exactly the kind of policy the monk is aiming to promote. He's said to have referred to himself as "the Buddhist Osama bin Laden." How can this sort of bigotry possibly be reconciled with the teachings of the Enlightened One?

I'm happy to say that there are plenty of other Buddhist monks in Burma who have been pushing back against their chauvinist colleagues. But to understand what's been happening, we also need to take a closer look at those who claim to be standing up for Buddhism even as they've doing things that don't seem to be easily reconcilable with their religion.

First of all, the notion of Buddhism as an inherently pacifist religion has a strong element of Western oversimplification. Buddhist teaching has never prohibited believers from fighting in defense of a just cause. As the scholars Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer show in their book Buddhist Warfare, Buddhists have participated in wars ever since their faith came into being. Militant monks have fought for Chinese rulers (and against them) for centuries. Japan's samurai warriors were ardent Buddhists, men who cited the Buddha's teachings on the impermanence of physical existence as a good argument for soldiering.

When the Dalai Lama urges his fellow Tibetans to maintain non-violence in their struggle against Chinese rule, his fans in the West tend to see this as a typically Buddhist attitude. But, as some astute observers have pointed out, the Dalai Lama's embrace of civil disobedience may owe as much to Gandhi and Martin Luther King as it does to his fellow believers. (Nor, intriguingly, did it stop His Holiness from approving the killing of Osama bin Laden, though he later qualified his position when it became clear that the al Qaeda leader was unarmed when he was shot.) Indeed, his religious authority hasn't been enough to prevent over 100 Tibetans from killing themselves as a protest against Chinese policy despite his injunctions against suicide. (Happily, in the wake of the Human Rights Watch report, he has been urging the monks in Burma to end the violence there.)

But doctrine is only part of the problem. All religions -- Buddhism included -- tend to create a powerful sense of collective identity among their followers. All of the great world religions emphasize the sanctity of human life, and strive to limit the use of violence to what's admissible in certain cases. But those careful distinctions tend to go out the window when a group of believers feels that its values are under threat.

As the current crisis in Burma demonstrates, modern Buddhists are just as susceptible to identity politics as anyone else. In March, police in Sri Lanka stood by as Buddhist monks led a mob that pillaged a Muslim-owned garment warehouse. Sri Lanka, which has been convulsed for years by a civil war between majority Buddhists and minority Tamils, is home to several hard-line Buddhist political movements, including something called the "Buddhist Strength Force," which has recently made a name for itself with vitriolic anti-Muslim rhetoric. "It is the monks who protect our country, religion, and race," said Sri Lankan Defense Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in a recent speech -- reinforcing suspicions that militant monks enjoy tacit government support.

The government in Thailand, meanwhile, has armed local Buddhist groups to counter a simmering Muslim insurgency in the south of the country. The militias, which are distinct from the regular army and the police, have the job of defending Buddhist communities against potential attacks -- and perhaps deepening the sectarian dimension in that long-running conflict.

What all three of these countries have in common is an ominous trend in which governments and religious institutions are lending support to destructive sectarian forces. Muslims may well bear some of the responsibility for the killings in Burma, but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that most of the violence was committed by far more numerous Buddhists who enjoyed crucial support from local officials and religious leaders.

None of this, of course, is to argue that Buddhists are uniquely evil. It's merely to point out that some of our idealized notions about the purity of Buddhism don't live up to real-world scrutiny. We shouldn't give Buddhist extremists a pass any more than we would their Muslim, Christian, or Jewish equivalents; otherwise we run the risk of becoming complicit in their crimes. Just because the conflicts they create are in far-away, exotic places is no excuse for complacency.

The world is too small for that.
The Buddha never ruled out murder all together, if by killing someone who would bring untold suffering unto others, by killing them you produce less death of innocent others, then this is a justifiable death.  Actually it is the most buddhist act of all to eradicate Islam, as it is this ideology that causes untold suffering and death to innocent people unnecessarily, because Islam rejects peace and embraces violence, it could rightly be considered the duty of all Buddhists, in the name of preventing the suffering of innocents, to eradicate Islam anywhere it resides.  Islam is anti life, anti peace, it is the duty of good men everywhere to oppose it.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on May 29, 2013, 12:10:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz267A6jhbw


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: stingray on May 31, 2013, 09:59:55 AM
Vatican Confirms Atheists Still Going To Hell, Despite Pope Francis Remarks

The Vatican has clarified that atheists will still go to hell if they reject God, after Pope Francis broke with tradition to deliver a homily stating non-believers who do good will be redeemed through Jesus.

The Pope's words made headlines around the world after he gave an unprepared speech in which he emphasised the importance of “doing good” as a principle which unites all humanity.

After international media attention, the Vatican attempted clarify how exactly one gets in to heaven, with Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, saying that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

That is, atheists are still going to hell.

However there was still hope for the sinful among us, as “every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin.”


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on May 31, 2013, 05:11:50 PM
^lol

 An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."

To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know anything about shit?"

And then she went back to reading her book......


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on May 31, 2013, 05:57:47 PM
^lol

 An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."

To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know anything about shit?"

And then she went back to reading her book......

A Muslim was seated next to a little girl on an air-plane, the Muslim thought to himself what a wonderful wife this young girl would make if only he wasn't about to hijack the plane and kill everyone on board.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on May 31, 2013, 10:12:28 PM
(http://static1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/4227862+_0c2eb59dc2b681eb10348d2e6d42df46.png)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on June 01, 2013, 02:55:25 PM
This fat disgusting Pig gets paid £214,000 a year from the Government to make up lies about anti-muslim sentiment.  Do these terrorist sympathisers think that by deliberately deceiving the public that they will inspires sympathy for their cause.  Muslims complain they are unfairly targeted,and yet like I have always said, through their lies, their deliberate deceit, their terrorism, and their perverse immorality they are despised for very good reasons.

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02578/Fiyaz-Mughal_2578959b.jpg)

The truth about the 'wave of attacks on Muslims’ after Woolwich murder

Fiyaz Mughal runs a project called Tell Mama, which receives £214,000 a year from the Government to monitor anti-Muslim attacks in Britain. In the wake of Drummer Lee Rigby’s murder, he has been understandably busy.

There has, said Mr Mughal, been “a wave of attacks, harassment, and hate-filled speech against Muslims … an unprecedented number of incidents”, including “a rise in street harassment of Muslims – unprovoked, opportunistic attacks from strangers as Muslims go about their lives”.

He added: “Over the past week or so, these sorts of hate crimes have noticeably increased in number and, in many instances, become more extreme.

"The scale of the backlash is astounding … there has been a massive spike in anti-Muslim prejudice. A sense of endemic fear has gripped Muslim communities.”

The media, especially the BBC, have accepted the claims without question. A presenter on Radio 4’s influential Today programme stated that attacks on Muslims were now “on a very serious scale”.

Talk of a “massive anti-Muslim backlash” has become routine. And it is that figure issued by Tell Mama – of, to date, 212 “anti-Muslim incidents” since the Woolwich murder – which has formed the basis of nearly all this reporting.

Mr Mughal is in no doubt what lies behind it all. As he told a newspaper: “I do not see an end to this cycle of violence. There is an underlying Islamophobia in our society and the horrendous events in Woolwich have brought this to the fore.”

And as he put it on Today, “the [Government’s] Prevent [anti-extremism] agenda, the extremist agenda, have not been good for building confidence – the sense of fear just alienates and isolates communities.”

Yet the unending “cycle of violence” against Muslims, the unprecedented “wave of attacks” against them from strangers in the street, the “underlying Islamophobia in our society” – all turn out to be yet more things we thought we knew about Woolwich that are not really supported by the evidence.

Tell Mama confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that about 120 of its 212 “anti-Muslim incidents” – 57 per cent – took place only online. They were offensive postings on Twitter or Facebook, or comments on blogs: nasty and undesirable, certainly, but some way from violence or physical harm and often, indeed, legal. Not all the offending tweets and postings, it turns out, even originated in Britain.

Tell Mama has no written definition of what it classes as an anti-Muslim incident, but has in the past adopted a wide definition. Last November, the cross-bench Asian peer, Baroness Flather, told a newspaper it was “pointless for the Conservatives to chase Muslim votes.
They are all on benefits and all vote Labour”. Tell Mama added this admittedly crass and untrue remark to its database as an “anti-Muslim incident,” though it said it had deleted it following an explanation from Lady Flather.

Although the service says its caseworkers “carefully handle each report as it comes in, to determine whether it can be verified and justified as an anti-Muslim incident”, Mr Mughal admitted that a further 35 of the 212 post-Woolwich incidents, or 16 per cent, had yet to be verified.
He justified publishing the figure, however, saying he expected that all but a handful of incidents would be verified.

Fewer than one in 12 of the 212 “incidents” reported to Tell Mama since Woolwich – 17 cases (8 per cent) – involved individuals being physically targeted.
Six people had things thrown at them, said Mr Mughal, and most of the other 11 cases were attempts to pull off the hijab or other items of Islamic dress.
Without in any way denying the distress and harm caused by such attacks, they do stand at the lower levels of seriousness.

Seventeen is still likely, of course, to underestimate the total number of attacks. The Metropolitan Police, the only major force in Britain which breaks down “offences with an Islamophobic flag”, said there were 13 allegations of common or racially aggravated assault of Muslims reported to it in London in the week after the killing.

About 40 per cent of Britain’s 2.7 million Muslims live in the capital, so the national figure could be around 32 cases, or about one Muslim in every 100,000.
Offences of common and racially aggravated assault are typically used where there has been no injury, such as hijab snatching, or minor injury not drawing blood or requiring medical treatment, such as the throwing incidents reported by Tell Mama. The Met said there were no cases reported to it where any more serious injury resulted.

Asking other police forces and trawling local media reports, The Telegraph has been unable to find a single confirmed case since Drummer Rigby’s death where any individual Muslim has received an injury requiring medical treatment.

Tell Mama’s Twitter feed reported one such incident, of a Muslim woman “knocked unconscious” in Bolton, but the local police said they had no knowledge of this and did not believe it happened.

It is unlikely, though not impossible, that any case of serious injury could have escaped the notice of the media or police.

Perhaps the most serious manifestation of anti-Muslim feeling after the killing was a number of attacks on mosques. These are believed to total 11, though here again evidence for a “wave of violence” is lacking.

With only two exceptions, a mosque in Grimsby into which firebombs were thrown and another one in Essex where a man entered with a knife, all the incidents were relatively minor, such as window-breaking or graffiti.

According to the Charity Commission, there are between 1,100 and 1,500 mosques in the UK, so the number attacked is less than 1 per cent.
Two other sets of figures are available. According to the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), forces nationally reported 71 anti-Muslim hate crimes or “incidents of note” to the National Community Tensions Team in the week after the murder of Drummer Rigby.
“That would cover everything they feel has a link to Woolwich, though an incident of note would not necessarily be a crime,” said a spokesman.
The second set of figures is from True Vision, an online hate-crime reporting tool operated by Acpo. There were 136 reports of anti-Muslim activity – internet or physical – received via this website in the week after Woolwich, overwhelmingly in the first few days, though Acpo said that not all were crimes and some reports were duplicates.

As for the claim that there is “no end” to the cycle of anti-Muslim activity, it has substantially ended already. According to police, there was a sharp spike in reported incidents in the day or so after the killing, but they have already subsided to pre-Woolwich levels. Acpo said that by last Wednesday, a week after the murder, the number of incidents reported to True Vision had fallen back to four a day.

The claim that the spike and numbers were “unprecedented” is wrong, too. After the 7/7 attacks in London – admittedly more serious than the killing of Drummer Rigby – there was a far bigger and more prolonged rise in faith-hate crimes. According to the Met, 269 were recorded in London alone in the three weeks after the 2005 attacks, compared with 40 for the same period the year before.

What the data broadly show, in short, is that Drummer Rigby’s killers have failed. The breakdown in community relations has not come. There has been a rise in incidents, but it appears to be very short-term, overwhelmingly non-violent and even then almost entirely at the lower end of the scale.

Yet this is not a message the Islamophobia industry wants heard, now or ever. Two months before the Woolwich killing, Tell Mama was already claiming that anti-Muslim incidents were “rising”, on the basis of reports made to its service. But at that point it had only been going for a year, so it had no previous figures to compare.

In 2010 a report for the Islamist Cordoba Foundation, described by David Cameron as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood”, said there was already what it called a wave of “terrorism” against British Muslims, with an “alarming rise” in hatred of Islam.

What evidence there is simply does not support the claims. There is anti-Muslim hatred in Britain, and it is disgraceful. But nearly all the evidence shows it is diminishing. In 2009 there were 368 anti-Muslim crimes in London; in 2012, there were 337. In the first 11 weeks of 2013, there were 64 crimes, equating at that point to 303 across the year, though the Woolwich attack will drive that up.

Hate crime in London’s main Muslim area, Tower Hamlets, has dropped by almost half since 2003 (though it rose slightly this year). Outside London, faith-hate crimes reported to the main forces with big Muslim populations – West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire – have fallen, too.
Broader political developments suggest a country increasingly at ease with Muslims. In 2009 the main anti-Islamic party, the BNP, had 55 councillors. Now it has two. The number of Muslim MPs doubled at the last election, some elected for entirely non-Muslim seats such as Bromsgrove, Gillingham, or Stratford-upon-Avon with no backlash whatever.

Continental campaigns to ban minarets and the niqab have gained absolutely no political traction in Britain.
Opinion polls after the Woolwich attack showed rising positive sentiment about Muslims – though, as with so many of these exercises, the answers can depend on the questions you ask.

Yet broader politics are also driving the Islamophobia industry.

For Islamists such as the Cordoba Foundation, the narrative of British Muslims under attack, increasingly hated and feared by their fellow citizens, is essential for recruitment, and for furthering their central lie that different races and faiths cannot coexist.
“Islamophobic” is also a handy charge to throw at anyone who questions Islamist ideology.

Tell Mama is not Islamist, though Mr Mughal has written in the Cordoba Foundation’s journal (he says it was a “mistake” which he will not repeat).

But part of its motivation appears to be an attempt to draw some of the sting from Islamist terrorism by equating it with the work of anti-Muslim extremist groups such as the English Defence League.
As Tell Mama’s Twitter feed puts it, “whilst we need to tackle the narrative of hate inspired by al-Qaeda, we also need to tackle the thuggery and hate of the EDL”. Mr Mughal insists that “both groups are significantly problematic”.
Loathsome as the white extreme Right is, however, there is clearly no comparison. No one in Britain has been killed by the EDL; 53 people have been killed by Islamist terrorists. White racists, unlike their Islamist equivalents, do not control key religious institutions or have a significant presence in British universities.

Over the past decade, half a dozen or so white British Right-wingers have been convicted of possessing explosives and other weapons. But all were loners not acting in concert with any group.

In contrast, there have, over the same period, been 150 convictions for Islamist-related terrorism in the UK, many relating to serious, carefully organised, often multinational plots against specific targets involving substantial numbers of people.
For some quarters of the Islamophobia industry, it has now become Muslims who are the main victims of the Woolwich horror.
But while some innocent Muslims have of course become victims, the main victim was Drummer Lee Rigby. And in overhyping the backlash, some in the Muslim community are playing right into the hands of his killers.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on June 01, 2013, 03:08:25 PM
Typical e-kul.

You ask him a question, when he cant defend it he posts up a video/article which has nothing to do with the first issue in the first place.
To be fair, I've experienced a few folks employing this same strategy on this board....I won't name names though.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on June 01, 2013, 03:52:49 PM
This story is the perfect example of how Muslims manipulate bleeding heart left wingers. They provoke a serious response and then cry they are the victims.  The focus on this story is how the poor Muslims are being targeted by the crazy angry buddhists.  If you were only scouring the headlines or skimming the article you would come away thinking those poor Muslims.  Always being bullied.  But what started the riots, what could enrage them to the point of such aggressive actions.  It all started after a Muslim man splashed gasoline on a Buddhist woman and set her on fire.   And yet they mention nothing about the victim of such a brutal act of terror other than to say that's what started the riots.  When the REAL victims are ignored (The Buddhist woman and her community) and the perpetrators are protected, then it is only a matter of time before people take matters into there own hands.

Now people can discount these acts of terrorism all they like, and suggest that burning a woman to death isn't a just cause to attack the community that produced the terrorist.  But what do these liberal bleeding hearts expect to do about it, are they going to let Islamic inspired terrorism to just become an accepted way of life for the citizens of the world.  Do we just have to accept that Muslim terror is a price we all have to pay?  It reminds me of my naive Mothers advice when being bullied by the school bully, which was to "Just ignore them".  Yeah, thanks Mum, that's a great way to get the shit kicked out of you!

Myanmar Muslims shelter in monastery after Buddhist attacks destroy homes, leave 1 dead

LASHIO, Myanmar — More than 1,000 Muslims who fled Myanmar’s latest bout of sectarian violence huddled Thursday in a Buddhist monastery guarded by army soldiers as calm returned to this northeastern city, though burnt out buildings leveled by Buddhist rioters still smoldered.

The army transported terrified Muslim families by the truckload out of a neighborhood in Lashio where overturned cars and motorcycles that had been charred a day earlier left black scars on the red earth.

“We heard things could get worse, so we waved down soldiers and asked them for help,” said 59-year-old Khin Than, who arrived at the monastery Thursday morning with her four children and sacks of luggage along with several hundred other Muslims. “We left because we’re afraid of being attacked.”

The violence in Lashio this week highlights how anti-Muslim unrest has slowly spread across Myanmar since starting last year in western Rakhine state and hitting the central city of Meikhtila in March. President Thein Sein’s government, which inherited power from the military two years ago, has been heavily criticized for failing to contain the violence.

In Lashio on Thursday, Buddhist monks organized meals for the newly arrived refugees, who huddled together in several buildings in the monastery compound.

Although a few Buddhist men could still be seen Thursday riding motorbikes with crude weapons such as sharpened bamboo poles, no new violence was reported. Several banks and shops reopened as residents emerged to look at destroyed Muslim shops. Trucks of soldiers and police crisscrossed main roads. They guarded the ruins of Muslim businesses that were reduced to ashes on Tuesday and Wednesday, erecting roadblocks from twisted debris.

At one corner, where the charred remains of a three-story building still smoldered, Muslim residents sorted through rubble for anything salvageable. One family packed electronics from their shop into the back of a truck.

A woman who had fled a mob a day earlier was still in a state of shock.

“These things should not happen,” said the woman, Aye Tin, a Muslim resident who slept overnight in a local Red Cross compound. “Most Muslims are staying off the streets. They’re afraid they’ll be attacked or killed if they go outside.”

The rioting began Tuesday after a Muslim man splashed gasoline on a Buddhist woman and set her on fire. Buddhist mobs responded by burning down several Muslim-owned shops, a mosque and an Islamic orphanage. Roving motorcyclists continued the violence on Wednesday, leaving one person dead and four injured.

Presidential spokesman Ye Htut said 25 people had been detained so far. He said all those arrested were from Lashio.

The violence is casting fresh doubt over whether Thein Sein’s government can or will act to contain the racial and religious intolerance plaguing a deeply fractured nation still struggling to emerge from half a century of military rule. Muslims, who account for about 4 percent of Myanmar’s roughly 60 million people, have been the main victims of the violence since it began last year, but so far most criminal trials have involved prosecutions of Muslims, not members of the Buddhist majority.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on June 01, 2013, 08:53:49 PM
(http://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/960176_384767464974361_934532028_n.png)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Radical Plato on June 01, 2013, 10:29:29 PM
HA HA HA HA
The mussies built a mosque next door to this guy, look at the sign he put on his front lawn.  

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/10/article-0-0BFD7DD600000578-496_634x421.jpg)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385625/Angry-neighbour-lives-mosque-erects-Bomb-Making-Next-Driveway-sign-lawn.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385625/Angry-neighbour-lives-mosque-erects-Bomb-Making-Next-Driveway-sign-lawn.html)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on June 04, 2013, 06:03:31 PM
HA HA HA HA
The mussies built a mosque next door to this guy, look at the sign he put on his front lawn.  

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/10/article-0-0BFD7DD600000578-496_634x421.jpg)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385625/Angry-neighbour-lives-mosque-erects-Bomb-Making-Next-Driveway-sign-lawn.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385625/Angry-neighbour-lives-mosque-erects-Bomb-Making-Next-Driveway-sign-lawn.html)

 :o


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on June 04, 2013, 06:05:19 PM
America’s First Atheist Monument: A 1,500-Pound Granite Bench
Tuesday, 04 Jun 2013
By Marti Lotman

The nation's first atheist monument to be erected on public land will be unveiled next month in staunchly Christian north Florida.

The monument -- a granite bench, engraved with secularist quotes -- will be placed outside the Bradford County Courthouse in Starke, Fla., next month. The bench will stand in contrast to a display of the Ten Commandments put up last year on the same patch of land, Time reports.

“We’d rather there be no monuments at all, but if they are allowed to have the Ten Commandments, we will have our own,” said monument designer Ken Loukinen, the director of regional operations for American Atheists.

Last year, Bradford County established a “Free Speech Forum” outside the courthouse, which permitted private groups to erect monuments at their own expense. Following the ruling, the Community Men’s Fellowship, a local Christian group, placed a 5-foot, 6-ton slab engraved with the Bible’s Ten Commandments outside of the courthouse.

American Atheists took the county to court, arguing that the Ten Commandments statue violated the separation of church and state.

It was ultimately decided that the Ten Commandments slab would stay while the atheists would be allowed to put up their own monument. The ruling paved the way for the 1,500-pound granite bench, engraved with quotes from prominent secular thinkers including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, to be built.

The monument will also include a quote from the Treaty of Tripoli, a 1796 pact between the U.S. and North African Muslims. The treaty is a seminal document for atheists because of its declaration that “the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,” reports The Huffington Post.

“We have maintained from the beginning that the Ten Commandments doesn’t belong on government property,” American Atheists President David Silverman said in a press release. “There is no secular purpose for the monument whatsoever and it makes atheists feel like second-class citizens. But if keeping it there means we have the right to install our own monument, then installing our own is exactly what we’ll do.”

The atheists' monument will also feature Biblical quotes listing harsh punishments for breaking the Ten Commandments. The inclusion is designed “to make it clear that the Ten Commandments are not the ‘great moral code’ they’re often portrayed to be,” Dave Muscato, American Atheists public relations director, said.

Ken Weaver of the Community Men’s Fellowship told the Christian Post that though his group fundamentally disagrees with the atheists' stance on religion, it supports their right to express their beliefs freely.

“God worked this out,” the fellowship said in a Facebook statement.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/atheist-monumnet-florida/2013/06/04/id/508001


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: avxo on June 04, 2013, 06:41:39 PM
Ken Weaver of the Community Men’s Fellowship told the Christian Post that though his group fundamentally disagrees with the atheists' stance on religion, it supports their right to express their beliefs freely.

Judging Mr. Weaver from this one statement alone, I am forced to wonder, why can't more people be like that?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 04, 2013, 07:30:34 PM
Lately, I've been using warm, freshly grilled bacon slices as bookmarks while I read the Koran. Any tips on how to get the grease marks out?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on June 05, 2013, 06:07:34 AM
Lately, I've been using warm, freshly grilled bacon slices as bookmarks while I read the Koran. Any tips on how to get the grease marks out?

I have a copy of the Bhagavad Gita that I bound between two large all-beef patties.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: a_ahmed on June 05, 2013, 09:05:50 AM
^Were they halal beef patties?


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2013, 11:58:32 AM
Judging Mr. Weaver from this one statement alone, I am forced to wonder, why can't more people be like that?

I wonder why people who organize and protest based on a belief in nothing cannot find better things to do with their time.  It's actually pretty comical. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2013, 11:59:50 AM
I have a copy of the Bhagavad Gita that I bound between two large all-beef patties.

Hey I read that book.  Still have it.   :)


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Butterbean on June 05, 2013, 12:43:26 PM
I have a copy of the Bhagavad Gita that I bound between two large all-beef patties.


I got a copy of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures for my birthday.



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2013, 12:50:32 PM

I got a copy of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures for my birthday.



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

 :D



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Butterbean on June 05, 2013, 12:57:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_GFzFqyaRc

 :D



haha!!  ;D


But I don't think you got the joke >:(


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2013, 01:04:44 PM
haha!!  ;D


But I don't think you got the joke >:(

No.   :-[  Can you explain?  Although I tell people it sorta takes the funny out when you have to explain a joke. 


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Butterbean on June 05, 2013, 01:15:27 PM
No.   :-[  Can you explain?  Although I tell people it sorta takes the funny out when you have to explain a joke.  

Apparently that is a book popular w/JW's and they don't celebrate birthdays.




I read my Book of Mormon in Starbucks and my Torah at Red Lobster.


 :-\



Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2013, 04:41:12 PM
Apparently that is a book popular w/JW's and they don't celebrate birthdays.




I read my Book of Mormon in Starbucks and my Torah at Red Lobster.


 :-\



Ok.  Got it.  I was a little slow on the uptake.   :-[

But I did get the last one.   ;D


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on June 06, 2013, 05:24:43 AM
^Were they halal beef patties?

 ;D  Oh man they weren't, just grocery store ground chuck.


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Man of Steel on June 06, 2013, 05:33:21 AM
Apparently that is a book popular w/JW's and they don't celebrate birthdays.




I read my Book of Mormon in Starbucks and my Torah at Red Lobster.


 :-\



AAAHAHAHAH!!!  ;D



I was invited to a bar mitzvah later this year and I already have a beautiful copy of the KJV of the NT on order with Shlomo's name in gold on the cover!


Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Butterbean on June 06, 2013, 09:07:59 AM
AAAHAHAHAH!!!  ;D



I was invited to a bar mitzvah later this year and I already have a beautiful copy of the KJV of the NT on order with Shlomo's name in gold on the cover!

LOL  ;D ;D




Title: Re: The Atheist Thread
Post by: Rhino on July 22, 2013, 04:59:40 PM
Big Ach has the right idea. Keep ur culture and never forget islam. Even if you don't believe. Me... I still believe in god... but have too many questions about islam. I will convert to Catholic soon enough. loco has the right idea. Issa is very important in al qur'an and issa is Jesus... peace and blessings be upon issa.