Faith is Born from Fear

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not even going to respond to you anymore. You've proven that you're so off base and argumentative that you're beyond rational discussion.

Let me guess, I am crazy because I ask you to back up your claims, and refuse to fall into your pathetic attempts to outsmart a 4 year old child.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A fundie crank and a conspiracy theorist.

Birds of a feather...

Talking to the voices in your head again? Did you forget the lesson I handed you in how evolution actually works?

 

[Hollie]

A fundie crank and a conspiracy theorist.

Birds of a feather...

Talking to the voices in your head again? Did you forget the lesson I handed you in how evolution actually works?

You are a victim of your own incompetence.

It's comedy gold when a fundie claims to know "how evolution actually works". Here's a hint: magic, supernaturalism, and a worldwide conspiracy involving "Evilutionist atheist" scientists is hardly something you should bring to the grown up table.

 

[PratchettFan]

I wouldn't necessarily dispute that, but I do believe that Christianity is backed by the facts and by reason.

By the way, in the above you made a very important observation. The new atheist does, essentially, equate science with atheism, doesn't he?

I won't dispute that Christianity is backed by reason. But I am curious as to the claim that it is backed by facts. Can you expand on that?

I would agree many Atheists believe their faith is supported by science. They are wrong.

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is borne from:

1. Arrogance
2. Selfishness
3. Self Centeredness

The above is just silly. Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs of “ideologies.” There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theist assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft of substantiation.

And you don't see what you just wrote is an ideology?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are a victim of your own incompetence.

It's comedy gold when a fundie claims to know "how evolution actually works". Here's a hint: magic, supernaturalism, and a worldwide conspiracy involving "Evilutionist atheist" scientists is hardly something you should bring to the grown up table.

If I am incompetent, and I managed to prove you were wrong, which I did, what does that make you?

FYI, the reason I actually understand evolution is that, unlike you, I studied it enough to know how it works. I don't get my science from kids books, I get it from doctoral theses. You have the basic information I learned in 3rd grade, most of which is doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong.

Also, I am not a fundie, I actually know evolution is a valid theory, I don't take it on faith.

 

[MaxGrit]

a man, a duck, and a monkey walked into a bar....the bartender said, "what is this?...some kind of joke?".......

Good one. Here's another joke.

A man is walking in the desert. His SUV broke down a while ago, and no one knew he was in the desert. There is nothing but desert for miles and miles, with the closest a gas station 30 miles away from his broken down SUV. It was late summer and still very hot. He had waited for a day in his SUV hoping someone would pass by his location, but it was futile and he was almost out of water . . .

 

[Hollie]

You are a victim of your own incompetence.

It's comedy gold when a fundie claims to know "how evolution actually works". Here's a hint: magic, supernaturalism, and a worldwide conspiracy involving "Evilutionist atheist" scientists is hardly something you should bring to the grown up table.

If I am incompetent, and I managed to prove you were wrong, which I did, what does that make you?

FYI, the reason I actually understand evolution is that, unlike you, I studied it enough to know how it works. I don't get my science from kids books, I get it from doctoral theses. You have the basic information I learned in 3rd grade, most of which is doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong.

Also, I am not a fundie, I actually know evolution is a valid theory, I don't take it on faith.

For all your bluster, it's painfully clear your exposure to a science vocabulary is stunted. Isn't it curious you make nonsensical statements about proving anyone wrong when the entirety of your arguments are appeals to magic and superstition.

Unlike you fundies, I don't rely on dogma but on supported knowledge to come to conclusions about the diversity of life on the planet. Your religious dogma takes centuries to change, if it ever does at all. But if a scientific tenet is proven absolutely false, then the truth must supplant the fiction.

So tell us about talking snakes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For all your bluster, it's painfully clear your exposure to a science vocabulary is stunted. Isn't it curious you make nonsensical statements about proving anyone wrong when the entirety of your arguments are appeals to magic and superstition.

Unlike you fundies, I don't rely on dogma but on supported knowledge to come to conclusions about the diversity of life on the planet. Your religious dogma takes centuries to change, if it ever does at all. But if a scientific tenet is proven absolutely false, then the truth must supplant the fiction.

So tell us about talking snakes.

Blunted in comparison to what?

I have a question for the idiots, does Hollie read posts before replying to them? Can anyone explain why she continues to label me instead of actually responding to the words I write?

 

[PostmodernProph]

For all your bluster, it's painfully clear your exposure to a science vocabulary is stunted. Isn't it curious you make nonsensical statements about proving anyone wrong when the entirety of your arguments are appeals to magic and superstition.

Unlike you fundies, I don't rely on dogma but on supported knowledge to come to conclusions about the diversity of life on the planet. Your religious dogma takes centuries to change, if it ever does at all. But if a scientific tenet is proven absolutely false, then the truth must supplant the fiction.

So tell us about talking snakes.

Blunted in comparison to what?

I have a question for the idiots, does Hollie read posts before replying to them? Can anyone explain why she continues to label me instead of actually responding to the words I write?

because she only has seven arguments and she's already used them all......

 

[AtheistBuddah]

For all your bluster, it's painfully clear your exposure to a science vocabulary is stunted. Isn't it curious you make nonsensical statements about proving anyone wrong when the entirety of your arguments are appeals to magic and superstition.

Unlike you fundies, I don't rely on dogma but on supported knowledge to come to conclusions about the diversity of life on the planet. Your religious dogma takes centuries to change, if it ever does at all. But if a scientific tenet is proven absolutely false, then the truth must supplant the fiction.

So tell us about talking snakes.

Blunted in comparison to what?

I have a question for the idiots, does Hollie read posts before replying to them? Can anyone explain why she continues to label me instead of actually responding to the words I write?

because she only has seven arguments and she's already used them all......

Because there is no need to respond to the words in your post. Despite your claims of being educated in evolutionary theory and not being a fundie crank, the evidence would simply suggest otherwise. She is responding to the evidence and not your hollow claims.

 

[PostmodernProph]

For all your bluster, it's painfully clear your exposure to a science vocabulary is stunted. Isn't it curious you make nonsensical statements about proving anyone wrong when the entirety of your arguments are appeals to magic and superstition.

Unlike you fundies, I don't rely on dogma but on supported knowledge to come to conclusions about the diversity of life on the planet. Your religious dogma takes centuries to change, if it ever does at all. But if a scientific tenet is proven absolutely false, then the truth must supplant the fiction.

So tell us about talking snakes.

Blunted in comparison to what?

I have a question for the idiots, does Hollie read posts before replying to them? Can anyone explain why she continues to label me instead of actually responding to the words I write?

because she only has seven arguments and she's already used them all......

Because there is no need to respond to the words in your post. Despite your claims of being educated in evolutionary theory and not being a fundie crank, the evidence would simply suggest otherwise. She is responding to the evidence and not your hollow claims.

not sure if that is directed at Quantum or me, though I DO consider myself well educated in evolutionary theory and I am NOT a fundamentalist (the only "evidence" I am being Hollie's repetitive and inaccurate insistence that I am a young earther)......that being said, Hollie doesn't respond to anything......she reposts the same comments on a repetitive cycle that bears no relationship whatsoever to the arguments raised (6000 year old earth, talking snakes, why don't fundies ever prove, science vocabulary...., etc, etc, etc.).....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because there is no need to respond to the words in your post. Despite your claims of being educated in evolutionary theory and not being a fundie crank, the evidence would simply suggest otherwise. She is responding to the evidence and not your hollow claims.

It was my post, and the evidence clearly shows I understand science better than she does, yet she continues to label me as a fundie because she refuses to admit that anyone knows more than she does.

Come to think of it, you have the same problem.

 

[Hollie]

For all your bluster, it's painfully clear your exposure to a science vocabulary is stunted. Isn't it curious you make nonsensical statements about proving anyone wrong when the entirety of your arguments are appeals to magic and superstition.

Unlike you fundies, I don't rely on dogma but on supported knowledge to come to conclusions about the diversity of life on the planet. Your religious dogma takes centuries to change, if it ever does at all. But if a scientific tenet is proven absolutely false, then the truth must supplant the fiction.

So tell us about talking snakes.

Blunted in comparison to what?

I have a question for the idiots, does Hollie read posts before replying to them? Can anyone explain why she continues to label me instead of actually responding to the words I write?

The words you carelessly string together in the hope of making a coherent statement don't actually approach addressing the thread topic.

 

[Hollie]

Because there is no need to respond to the words in your post. Despite your claims of being educated in evolutionary theory and not being a fundie crank, the evidence would simply suggest otherwise. She is responding to the evidence and not your hollow claims.

It was my post, and the evidence clearly shows I understand science better than she does, yet she continues to label me as a fundie because she refuses to admit that anyone knows more than she does.

Come to think of it, you have the same problem.

I've never seen any evidence (based upon your sidestepping and obfuscation), that you have even a middling understanding of science.

It's so often a trait of fundies to bluster loudly about their alleged understanding of science, yet, that bluster hides a deep fear and revulsion of science they see as a threat their religious dogma.

 

[Hollie]

For all your bluster, it's painfully clear your exposure to a science vocabulary is stunted. Isn't it curious you make nonsensical statements about proving anyone wrong when the entirety of your arguments are appeals to magic and superstition.

Unlike you fundies, I don't rely on dogma but on supported knowledge to come to conclusions about the diversity of life on the planet. Your religious dogma takes centuries to change, if it ever does at all. But if a scientific tenet is proven absolutely false, then the truth must supplant the fiction.

So tell us about talking snakes.

Blunted in comparison to what?

I have a question for the idiots, does Hollie read posts before replying to them? Can anyone explain why she continues to label me instead of actually responding to the words I write?

because she only has seven arguments and she's already used them all......

Because there is no need to respond to the words in your post. Despite your claims of being educated in evolutionary theory and not being a fundie crank, the evidence would simply suggest otherwise. She is responding to the evidence and not your hollow claims.

not sure if that is directed at Quantum or me, though I DO consider myself well educated in evolutionary theory and I am NOT a fundamentalist (the only "evidence" I am being Hollie's repetitive and inaccurate insistence that I am a young earther)......that being said, Hollie doesn't respond to anything......she reposts the same comments on a repetitive cycle that bears no relationship whatsoever to the arguments raised (6000 year old earth, talking snakes, why don't fundies ever prove, science vocabulary...., etc, etc, etc.).....

I understand your feelings are hurt at being called out for your lack of science education, but you should understand that when the entirety of your comments amount to complaining about others challenging your specious opinions and your inability to defend an argument, consider the source of your limitations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The words you carelessly string together in the hope of making a coherent statement don't actually approach addressing the thread topic.

I am still waiting for you to address the thread topic and offer actual evidence to support it. Until you are willing to do that, and give rational people a chance to refute it, I see no reason to pretend that you actually have a point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've never seen any evidence (based upon your sidestepping and obfuscation), that you have even a middling understanding of science.

It's so often a trait of fundies to bluster loudly about their alleged understanding of science, yet, that bluster hides a deep fear and revulsion of science they see as a threat their religious dogma.

Did you forget the series of posts where I proved to everyone outside your head that I understand evolution better than you?

 

[Hollie]

I've never seen any evidence (based upon your sidestepping and obfuscation), that you have even a middling understanding of science.

It's so often a trait of fundies to bluster loudly about their alleged understanding of science, yet, that bluster hides a deep fear and revulsion of science they see as a threat their religious dogma.

Did you forget the series of posts where I proved to everyone outside your head that I understand evolution better than you?

That's so silly.

 

[Hollie]

The words you carelessly string together in the hope of making a coherent statement don't actually approach addressing the thread topic.

I am still waiting for you to address the thread topic and offer actual evidence to support it. Until you are willing to do that, and give rational people a chance to refute it, I see no reason to pretend that you actually have a point.

I've already addressed the thread topic.