Do people who are atheist/agnostic fear religious people ?

I don't like to attack anyones faith except evolutionist,but the Catholics placate for visitors.

I'm very confident the overwhelming majority of people in my geology, biology and anthropology courses were believers.


Thankfully, most educated christians (and probably uneducated ones too) dont' take issue with basic science like evolution the way you do.

Because most don't know enough about the theory to see how offensive it is to the creator.

They surely don't know enough about it to know why it didn't happen as the text books teach.

You must not have read that right, they were in the geology/biology/anthropology courses so they were educatd on it, the people you quote in here I'm certain weren't in classes like those.
 
Before I thought you were a nice person who just happened to be stupid, this post proves you're a jerk who happens to be stupid.

Me sharing a view of whether or not a god exists means I view them as my heros? Since you and Hitler both don't think unicorns exist, is he your hero? Which it's VERY debateable that Hitler didn't believe in a god, but that's not something that needs to be gotten into, as I don't care if he did or didn't.

You're in for a rude awakening Doc.

Hey i am a nice guy but this forum has brought out,well not the best in me.
See, your problem is that you are using your faith to argue with one who doesn't share your faith. It's as effective as arguing with someone whose favorite color is yellow and you want them to love your favorite color, blue.

That is idiotic because of its futility. So, because you aren't making headway along that path, you attempt a lame guilt by association. That's illogical and a colossal fail on your part.

Why is it so important to you that he believes as you do? What the hell is up with that? Have you ever, EVER, practiced 'live and let live'?

Or, are you just one of those authoritarian control freaks I spoke about in another thread?

Respectfully,if you read the thread i definately did not use my religous beliefs to debate them, I used facts.
 
I'm very confident the overwhelming majority of people in my geology, biology and anthropology courses were believers.


Thankfully, most educated christians (and probably uneducated ones too) dont' take issue with basic science like evolution the way you do.

Because most don't know enough about the theory to see how offensive it is to the creator.

They surely don't know enough about it to know why it didn't happen as the text books teach.

You must not have read that right, they were in the geology/biology/anthropology courses so they were educatd on it, the people you quote in here I'm certain weren't in classes like those.

No one could say anything of substance when i presented my theory. And no one was able to come up with an argument against Dr.Spetners mutation dilemma. They had nothing to argue against if evolution occured through mutations everything would have went extinct 100,000 years ago. Because of the reality of mutations.

Look sorry for derailing the thread. If you wish to carry on the debate return to the other thread.
 
You're in for a rude awakening Doc.

Hey i am a nice guy but this forum has brought out,well not the best in me.
See, your problem is that you are using your faith to argue with one who doesn't share your faith. It's as effective as arguing with someone whose favorite color is yellow and you want them to love your favorite color, blue.

That is idiotic because of its futility. So, because you aren't making headway along that path, you attempt a lame guilt by association. That's illogical and a colossal fail on your part.

Why is it so important to you that he believes as you do? What the hell is up with that? Have you ever, EVER, practiced 'live and let live'?

Or, are you just one of those authoritarian control freaks I spoke about in another thread?

Respectfully,if you read the thread i definately did not use my religous beliefs to debate them, I used facts.
Then you really cannot delineate between fact and opinion.
 
See, your problem is that you are using your faith to argue with one who doesn't share your faith. It's as effective as arguing with someone whose favorite color is yellow and you want them to love your favorite color, blue.

That is idiotic because of its futility. So, because you aren't making headway along that path, you attempt a lame guilt by association. That's illogical and a colossal fail on your part.

Why is it so important to you that he believes as you do? What the hell is up with that? Have you ever, EVER, practiced 'live and let live'?

Or, are you just one of those authoritarian control freaks I spoke about in another thread?

Respectfully,if you read the thread i definately did not use my religous beliefs to debate them, I used facts.
Then you really cannot delineate between fact and opinion.

See previous post.
 
Because most don't know enough about the theory to see how offensive it is to the creator.

They surely don't know enough about it to know why it didn't happen as the text books teach.

You must not have read that right, they were in the geology/biology/anthropology courses so they were educatd on it, the people you quote in here I'm certain weren't in classes like those.

No one could say anything of substance when i presented my theory. And no one was able to come up with an argument against Dr.Spetners mutation dilemma. They had nothing to argue against if evolution occured through mutations everything would have went extinct 100,000 years ago. Because of the reality of mutations.

Look sorry for derailing the thread. If you wish to carry on the debate return to the other thread.

Respectfully,if you read the thread i definately did not use my religous beliefs to debate them, I used facts.
Then you really cannot delineate between fact and opinion.

See previous post.
And, what "facts" am I looking at in that previous post?
 
Because most don't know enough about the theory to see how offensive it is to the creator.

They surely don't know enough about it to know why it didn't happen as the text books teach.

You must not have read that right, they were in the geology/biology/anthropology courses so they were educatd on it, the people you quote in here I'm certain weren't in classes like those.

No one could say anything of substance when i presented my theory. And no one was able to come up with an argument against Dr.Spetners mutation dilemma. They had nothing to argue against if evolution occured through mutations everything would have went extinct 100,000 years ago. Because of the reality of mutations.

Look sorry for derailing the thread. If you wish to carry on the debate return to the other thread.

Actually it's very easy to squash that in a few sentences, which other posters have already done and I guess I'll do it now.

There's beneficial, neutral (which most are) and harmful mutations. The individuals with beneficial mutations will live longer by not being eaten, thus breed more. The neutral ones will have no impact, the negative ones will cause the individuals to die earlier than the individuals without that mutation. Which is why most albino animals die in the wild.
 

Forum List

Back
Top