Are Atheists Delusional?

[progressive hunter]

well you do show the same mindlessness as a trump worshiper

and no I didnt

Yeah, im the mindless one.
Your god hates hypocrites and people who judge.
Dwell on that one, constantine.

I didnt judge you,,,just describing my encounter

Your desperation is making me sympathize for you bro.
Thats no easy task. Im a big asshole.

hey youre a brother asshole,,,

all I want is proof, but nobody has any

All I want is proof too. But you sidestep that by claiming all you need is faith.

the topic is evolution being taught as fact when its just speculation mixed with flat out lies


so try and stay on topic for once

 

[james bond]

A thread about delusion... "god said it"

Haha . You missed the colossal, stupendous, humongous evidence of the Bible which was right under your nose in post #87. I suppose when one bases their science on historical evidence and not observational ones, their powers of observation are greatly eroded or skewed.

 

[progressive hunter]

well atheism is a religion

Nonsense.

it requires belief

Nonsense.

it requires belief without proof

Once again, you require proof from scientists. But don't trouble yourself with it on your own ideas.

well its they that claim fact without proof, where I am clear as to faith

 

[Hollie]

When the entire basis for your creation science is an invisible being that cannot be verified or studied, it does not belong in a science class at all.

Then let us eliminate quantum mechanics with its invisible particles. To the contrary, we can study this invisible being called God because he is explained in the Bible, a non-fiction and historical book. Thus, the Bible with its science inside (not a science book, but science backs up what it says) can be taught in a science class based on creation theory. Creation was what was believed by scientists before the 1850s. If we eliminate creation, then the science after the 1850s, ToE and evolutionary thinking and history could be completely wrong based on starting out with the wrong assumptions. After all, ToE falls apart immediately if long time is eliminated. Why not eliminate long-time since it is based on assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes, uniformitarianism and more.

You might be surprised to find that knowledge has advanced since 1850.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, im the mindless one.
Your god hates hypocrites and people who judge.
Dwell on that one, constantine.

I didnt judge you,,,just describing my encounter

Your desperation is making me sympathize for you bro.
Thats no easy task. Im a big asshole.

hey youre a brother asshole,,,

all I want is proof, but nobody has any

All I want is proof too. But you sidestep that by claiming all you need is faith.

the topic is evolution being taught as fact when its just speculation mixed with flat out lies


so try and stay on topic for once

As I said before, it is the best explanation for the diversity of species.

Any system that starts with the idea that an invisible being created everything, but cannot be studied or verified, is not scientific and should not be taught in science classes.

 

[WinterBorn]

When the entire basis for your creation science is an invisible being that cannot be verified or studied, it does not belong in a science class at all.

Then let us eliminate quantum mechanics with its invisible particles. To the contrary, we can study this invisible being called God because he is explained in the Bible, a non-fiction and historical book. Thus, the Bible with its science inside (not a science book, but science backs up what it says) can be taught in a science class based on creation theory. Creation was what was believed by scientists before the 1850s. If we eliminate creation, then the science after the 1850s, ToE and evolutionary thinking and history could be completely wrong based on starting out with the wrong assumptions. After all, ToE falls apart immediately if long time is eliminated. Why not eliminate long-time since it is based on assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes, uniformitarianism and more.

You might be surprised to find that knowledge has advanced since 1850.

For some.....

 

[TNHarley]

A thread about delusion... "god said it"

Haha . You missed the colossal, stupendous, humongous evidence of the Bible which was right under your nose in post #87. I suppose when one bases their science on historical evidence and not observational ones, their powers of observation are greatly eroded or skewed.

Lol wut?

 

[WinterBorn]

A thread about delusion... "god said it"

Haha . You missed the colossal, stupendous, humongous evidence of the Bible which was right under your nose in post #87. I suppose when one bases their science on historical evidence and not observational ones, their powers of observation are greatly eroded or skewed.

???

Post #87
"We didn't say God did it. God said he did it. It was found in the tablets of the Bible and after piecing together the historical or forensic evidence, we found it explained in Genesis.

It goes to show what you just said, in front of all these people, is plain wrong."


You consider that "...colossal, stupendous, humongous evidence..."?

 

[progressive hunter]

I didnt judge you,,,just describing my encounter

Your desperation is making me sympathize for you bro.
Thats no easy task. Im a big asshole.

hey youre a brother asshole,,,

all I want is proof, but nobody has any

All I want is proof too. But you sidestep that by claiming all you need is faith.

the topic is evolution being taught as fact when its just speculation mixed with flat out lies


so try and stay on topic for once

As I said before, it is the best explanation for the diversity of species.

Any system that starts with the idea that an invisible being created everything, but cannot be studied or verified, is not scientific and should not be taught in science classes.

so you finally admit no proof,,,

but you evo's want us to believe we came from a wet rock...

so whos crazier????

at least we admit its based on faith without proof

the problem is your religion is taught as fact using tax payer money where ours is not

 

[WinterBorn]

Your desperation is making me sympathize for you bro.
Thats no easy task. Im a big asshole.

hey youre a brother asshole,,,

all I want is proof, but nobody has any

All I want is proof too. But you sidestep that by claiming all you need is faith.

the topic is evolution being taught as fact when its just speculation mixed with flat out lies


so try and stay on topic for once

As I said before, it is the best explanation for the diversity of species.

Any system that starts with the idea that an invisible being created everything, but cannot be studied or verified, is not scientific and should not be taught in science classes.

so you finally admit no proof,,,

but you evo's want us to believe we came from a wet rock...

so whos crazier????

at least we admit its based on faith without proof

the problem is your religion is taught as fact using tax payer money where ours is not

Every biology class I ever took or taught was taught as the Theory of Evolution.

 

[progressive hunter]

When the entire basis for your creation science is an invisible being that cannot be verified or studied, it does not belong in a science class at all.

Then let us eliminate quantum mechanics with its invisible particles. To the contrary, we can study this invisible being called God because he is explained in the Bible, a non-fiction and historical book. Thus, the Bible with its science inside (not a science book, but science backs up what it says) can be taught in a science class based on creation theory. Creation was what was believed by scientists before the 1850s. If we eliminate creation, then the science after the 1850s, ToE and evolutionary thinking and history could be completely wrong based on starting out with the wrong assumptions. After all, ToE falls apart immediately if long time is eliminated. Why not eliminate long-time since it is based on assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes, uniformitarianism and more.

You might be surprised to find that knowledge has advanced since 1850.

thats part of the problem,,,in 1850 it waas based on a hatred of god from those like darwin and lyle to name a few,,,and several of them have admitted to lying

 

[TNHarley]

I think creation is just as possible as the big bang and evolution.
I dont think a man made god created our reality but something could have.
I hope i live long enough to find out the truth.
Although the fossil record is pretty convincing..
Also, does evolution rule out creation? I dont think it does. It might contradict a few verses but the bible is full of contradictions, so that wouldnt be a big deal.

 

[progressive hunter]

hey youre a brother asshole,,,

all I want is proof, but nobody has any

All I want is proof too. But you sidestep that by claiming all you need is faith.

the topic is evolution being taught as fact when its just speculation mixed with flat out lies


so try and stay on topic for once

As I said before, it is the best explanation for the diversity of species.

Any system that starts with the idea that an invisible being created everything, but cannot be studied or verified, is not scientific and should not be taught in science classes.

so you finally admit no proof,,,

but you evo's want us to believe we came from a wet rock...

so whos crazier????

at least we admit its based on faith without proof

the problem is your religion is taught as fact using tax payer money where ours is not

Every biology class I ever took or taught was taught as the Theory of Evolution.

but youve been arguing it as fact all morning,,,

and NO they seem to claim theory but they start every text book off with million of your ago,,,not thats its believed that millions of yrs ago

you need to watch the video I posted earlier about lies in the textbooks,,,and try it with an open mind because he backs it all up with footnotes and sources

 

[TNHarley]

When the entire basis for your creation science is an invisible being that cannot be verified or studied, it does not belong in a science class at all.

Then let us eliminate quantum mechanics with its invisible particles. To the contrary, we can study this invisible being called God because he is explained in the Bible, a non-fiction and historical book. Thus, the Bible with its science inside (not a science book, but science backs up what it says) can be taught in a science class based on creation theory. Creation was what was believed by scientists before the 1850s. If we eliminate creation, then the science after the 1850s, ToE and evolutionary thinking and history could be completely wrong based on starting out with the wrong assumptions. After all, ToE falls apart immediately if long time is eliminated. Why not eliminate long-time since it is based on assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes, uniformitarianism and more.

You might be surprised to find that knowledge has advanced since 1850.

thats part of the problem,,,in 1850 it waas based on a hatred of god from those like darwin and lyle to name a few,,,and several of them have admitted to lying

Darwin didnt hate god.
Good gawd man, do you have any fucking clue about any of this shit?

 

[Hollie]

When the entire basis for your creation science is an invisible being that cannot be verified or studied, it does not belong in a science class at all.

Then let us eliminate quantum mechanics with its invisible particles. To the contrary, we can study this invisible being called God because he is explained in the Bible, a non-fiction and historical book. Thus, the Bible with its science inside (not a science book, but science backs up what it says) can be taught in a science class based on creation theory. Creation was what was believed by scientists before the 1850s. If we eliminate creation, then the science after the 1850s, ToE and evolutionary thinking and history could be completely wrong based on starting out with the wrong assumptions. After all, ToE falls apart immediately if long time is eliminated. Why not eliminate long-time since it is based on assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes, uniformitarianism and more.

You might be surprised to find that knowledge has advanced since 1850.

thats part of the problem,,,in 1850 it waas based on a hatred of god from those like darwin and lyle to name a few,,,and several of them have admitted to lying

I dont think that promoting conspiracy theories is really helpful.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think creation is just as possible as the big bang and evolution.
I dont think a man made god created our reality but something could have.
I hope i live long enough to find out the truth.
Although the fossil record is pretty convincing..
Also, does evolution rule out creation? I dont think it does. It might contradict a few verses but the bible is full of contradictions, so that wouldnt be a big deal.

the fossil record is a fraud unless you think an animal can die and lay uneaten or unrotted for millions of yrs while being covered with dirt

and the other problem with it is they age the fossils by the rocks its in and they age the rocks by the fossils in it,,,
thats circular reasoning

to make a fossil it takes a rapid covering to preserve the integrity of the subject

and the geo column can be replicated with a 2 liter bottle, sand dirt and water in a matter of minutes

 

[progressive hunter]

When the entire basis for your creation science is an invisible being that cannot be verified or studied, it does not belong in a science class at all.

Then let us eliminate quantum mechanics with its invisible particles. To the contrary, we can study this invisible being called God because he is explained in the Bible, a non-fiction and historical book. Thus, the Bible with its science inside (not a science book, but science backs up what it says) can be taught in a science class based on creation theory. Creation was what was believed by scientists before the 1850s. If we eliminate creation, then the science after the 1850s, ToE and evolutionary thinking and history could be completely wrong based on starting out with the wrong assumptions. After all, ToE falls apart immediately if long time is eliminated. Why not eliminate long-time since it is based on assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes, uniformitarianism and more.

You might be surprised to find that knowledge has advanced since 1850.

thats part of the problem,,,in 1850 it waas based on a hatred of god from those like darwin and lyle to name a few,,,and several of them have admitted to lying

Darwin didnt hate god.
Good gawd man, do you have any fucking clue about any of this shit?

your asshole is showing,,,and yes he did

 

[progressive hunter]

When the entire basis for your creation science is an invisible being that cannot be verified or studied, it does not belong in a science class at all.

Then let us eliminate quantum mechanics with its invisible particles. To the contrary, we can study this invisible being called God because he is explained in the Bible, a non-fiction and historical book. Thus, the Bible with its science inside (not a science book, but science backs up what it says) can be taught in a science class based on creation theory. Creation was what was believed by scientists before the 1850s. If we eliminate creation, then the science after the 1850s, ToE and evolutionary thinking and history could be completely wrong based on starting out with the wrong assumptions. After all, ToE falls apart immediately if long time is eliminated. Why not eliminate long-time since it is based on assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes, uniformitarianism and more.

You might be surprised to find that knowledge has advanced since 1850.

thats part of the problem,,,in 1850 it waas based on a hatred of god from those like darwin and lyle to name a few,,,and several of them have admitted to lying

I dont think that promoting conspiracy theories is really helpful.

wheres the conspiracy???

 

[Likkmee]

Atheists are exercising their rights. Going to Hell is free will.
Leave them alone.

 

[Taz]

Atheists are exercising their rights. Going to Hell is free will.
Leave them alone.

You actually think that what people believe determines what happens to them when they die?