The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[PostmodernProph]

GET OUT AND LEAVE YOUR TAX DOLLARS WITH US!

.
speaking of tax dollars rawly, how about contributing to education and paying your share for a change - that way, even your input might have at least some semblance of meaning to it ...

.

????.....did you think Christians don't pay taxes?.....

 

[Taz]

Atheists aren't right either, but they are for sure less deluded than theists.

and the fact they feel that way is precisely why atheists are irrational......

Less irrational than theists, they don't believe something that hasn't been proven can't exist. Theists believe in fairy tales. I believe the matter hasn't been proven either way. The rational position.

 

[PratchettFan]

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Yes. Given the other options are less rational, then I will go with the most rational. As to settling on one theory, then entire point of a theory is for it to be tested and questioned. That is why science makes a lousy religion and religion is not science.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Atheists aren't right either, but they are for sure less deluded than theists.

and the fact they feel that way is precisely why atheists are irrational......

Less irrational than theists, they don't believe something that hasn't been proven can't exist. Theists believe in fairy tales. I believe the matter hasn't been proven either way. The rational position.

sure they have......what's more they contradict themselves......they take pride in believing that they don't believe something that hasn't been proven and then claim there is no God as if they can prove it......

 

[Taz]

Atheists aren't right either, but they are for sure less deluded than theists.

and the fact they feel that way is precisely why atheists are irrational......

Less irrational than theists, they don't believe something that hasn't been proven can't exist. Theists believe in fairy tales. I believe the matter hasn't been proven either way. The rational position.

sure they have......what's more they contradict themselves......they take pride in believing that they don't believe something that hasn't been proven and then claim there is no God as if they can prove it......

Right now, I'd have to say that given the actual evidence, right now there is no god. Making atheists more right than theists, who believe something that has not been proven at all.

 

[Hollie]

Here's a problem I have with atheists: they seem very offended by religion.

As an atheist I don't have any problems with religions. Fiction is fiction and there is nothing wrong with fiction.

As an atheist I don't have any problem with the vast majority of theists who believe in religions either. They are nice people who actually try and be good.

As an atheist I am entitled to a secular government. It is just that small minority of theists who want to impose their own personal religious beliefs on the secular government of We the People that cause all of the problems. Apparently they don't understand that their freedom of religions depends on my freedom from their religion.

can you give me an example of a theist who wants to impose their religious beliefs on you?.....

Of course. One bit of clarification though. It's not "theists" who want to impose their extremist beliefs on the government (with regard to the imposition of ID'iot creationism in the public schools), it's Christian fundies looking to do that. Get out of your madrassah more often.

It’s curious that there does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" and “anti-science” movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It would be easier to take seriously your protests here were your arguments not so tightly in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute. But that is not the case.

 

[Hollie]

Atheists aren't right either, but they are for sure less deluded than theists.

and the fact they feel that way is precisely why atheists are irrational......

Less irrational than theists, they don't believe something that hasn't been proven can't exist. Theists believe in fairy tales. I believe the matter hasn't been proven either way. The rational position.

sure they have......what's more they contradict themselves......they take pride in believing that they don't believe something that hasn't been proven and then claim there is no God as if they can prove it......

Confused and befuddled as always.......... no one is under any obligation to disprove your gawds........ or anyone else's gawds........ except maybe the gawds of punctuation.......... who have played a cruel joke on you.........

 

[Derideo_Te]

It’s curious that there does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" and “anti-science” movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It would be easier to take seriously your protests here were your arguments not so tightly in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute. But that is not the case.

Good point!

Given that it is exclusively one small subset of Christian fundamentalists who are utterly ignorant of the Constitution and that the Law of the Land separates church from state they are the essence of un-Americanism.

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheists aren't right either, but they are for sure less deluded than theists.

and the fact they feel that way is precisely why atheists are irrational......

Less irrational than theists, they don't believe something that hasn't been proven can't exist. Theists believe in fairy tales. I believe the matter hasn't been proven either way. The rational position.

sure they have......what's more they contradict themselves......they take pride in believing that they don't believe something that hasn't been proven and then claim there is no God as if they can prove it......

Right now, I'd have to say that given the actual evidence, right now there is no god. Making atheists more right than theists, who believe something that has not been proven at all.

What actual evidence?

 

[PratchettFan]

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

Evidence has been presented. I know this because I saw it. I know you read it because I read your responses to it. I get that you don't accept it as evidence, but I do not agree. So I am just not going to rehash the same points you have already rejected. I also get you want to educate me, but I don't consider you qualified to do that.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Atheists aren't right either, but they are for sure less deluded than theists.

and the fact they feel that way is precisely why atheists are irrational......

Less irrational than theists, they don't believe something that hasn't been proven can't exist. Theists believe in fairy tales. I believe the matter hasn't been proven either way. The rational position.

sure they have......what's more they contradict themselves......they take pride in believing that they don't believe something that hasn't been proven and then claim there is no God as if they can prove it......

Right now, I'd have to say that given the actual evidence, right now there is no god. Making atheists more right than theists, who believe something that has not been proven at all.

I think its cute that you believe you've proven something and don't realize how silly that makes you look.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective.

not at all......it is only your refusal to listen to what people say that provides the shallow perspective....

 

[PostmodernProph]

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

Evidence has been presented. I know this because I saw it. I know you read it because I read your responses to it. I get that you don't accept it as evidence, but I do not agree. So I am just not going to rehash the same points you have already rejected. I also get you want to educate me, but I don't consider you qualified to do that.

you have to be exceptionally ignorant or dishonest to claim that the existence of organic chemicals is evidence of abiogenesis.....if that's all you have you are wise not to :"rehash" it.......it would just make you look bad......as for education, I keep offering people the opportunity to educate us all, but all they do is pretend someone else has done it when they haven't.......

 

[Hollie]

This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective.

not at all......it is only your refusal to listen to what people say that provides the shallow perspective....

I can understand you're not able to be honest with either yourself or others regarding the influence of christian fundamentalists as the entities looking to strip away elements of the constitution as it applies to the Establishment Clause and public schools.

The Evolution Creationism and Intelligent Design Controversy

Not until 1968 did the Supreme Court rule in Epperson vs. Arkansas that such bans [teaching "creationism" - ed.] contravene the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose is religious. The Court used the same rationale in 1987 in Edwards vs Aguillard to strike down a Louisiana law that required biology teachers who taught the theory of evolution to also discuss evidence supporting the theory called "creation science."

While your primary purpose for denying that christian fundamentalism is unique in its anti-science, anti-evolution agenda aimed at the public schools is an attempt to force extremist views into the public schools, why would you think your dishonesty would go unnoticed?

 

[Hollie]

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

Evidence has been presented. I know this because I saw it. I know you read it because I read your responses to it. I get that you don't accept it as evidence, but I do not agree. So I am just not going to rehash the same points you have already rejected. I also get you want to educate me, but I don't consider you qualified to do that.

you have to be exceptionally ignorant or dishonest to claim that the existence of organic chemicals is evidence of abiogenesis.....if that's all you have you are wise not to :"rehash" it.......it would just make you look bad......as for education, I keep offering people the opportunity to educate us all, but all they do is pretend someone else has done it when they haven't.......

Actually, they have. You're unable to resolve the facts and evidence that challenges your YEC'ist views.

 

[Taz]

Atheists aren't right either, but they are for sure less deluded than theists.

and the fact they feel that way is precisely why atheists are irrational......

Less irrational than theists, they don't believe something that hasn't been proven can't exist. Theists believe in fairy tales. I believe the matter hasn't been proven either way. The rational position.

sure they have......what's more they contradict themselves......they take pride in believing that they don't believe something that hasn't been proven and then claim there is no God as if they can prove it......

Right now, I'd have to say that given the actual evidence, right now there is no god. Making atheists more right than theists, who believe something that has not been proven at all.

I think its cute that you believe you've proven something and don't realize how silly that makes you look.....

You're reading skills are declining. What did I say that I've proven?

 

[Taz]

Atheists aren't right either, but they are for sure less deluded than theists.

and the fact they feel that way is precisely why atheists are irrational......

Less irrational than theists, they don't believe something that hasn't been proven can't exist. Theists believe in fairy tales. I believe the matter hasn't been proven either way. The rational position.

sure they have......what's more they contradict themselves......they take pride in believing that they don't believe something that hasn't been proven and then claim there is no God as if they can prove it......

Right now, I'd have to say that given the actual evidence, right now there is no god. Making atheists more right than theists, who believe something that has not been proven at all.

What actual evidence?

Well, that's what I meant, the lack of actual evidence as it stands.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

Evidence has been presented. I know this because I saw it. I know you read it because I read your responses to it. I get that you don't accept it as evidence, but I do not agree. So I am just not going to rehash the same points you have already rejected. I also get you want to educate me, but I don't consider you qualified to do that.

you have to be exceptionally ignorant or dishonest to claim that the existence of organic chemicals is evidence of abiogenesis.....if that's all you have you are wise not to :"rehash" it.......it would just make you look bad......as for education, I keep offering people the opportunity to educate us all, but all they do is pretend someone else has done it when they haven't.......

You are free to see it any way you like. It really doesn't matter.

 

[PratchettFan]

and the fact they feel that way is precisely why atheists are irrational......

Less irrational than theists, they don't believe something that hasn't been proven can't exist. Theists believe in fairy tales. I believe the matter hasn't been proven either way. The rational position.

sure they have......what's more they contradict themselves......they take pride in believing that they don't believe something that hasn't been proven and then claim there is no God as if they can prove it......

Right now, I'd have to say that given the actual evidence, right now there is no god. Making atheists more right than theists, who believe something that has not been proven at all.

What actual evidence?

Well, that's what I meant, the lack of actual evidence as it stands.

The lack of evidence is just a lack of evidence. It does not constitute evidence unless you can demonstrate there would be evidence if there was a God. Since there is no evidence, I would say that puts Theists and Atheists on equal footing.

 

[BreezeWood]

GET OUT AND LEAVE YOUR TAX DOLLARS WITH US!

.
speaking of tax dollars rawly, how about contributing to education and paying your share for a change - that way, even your input might have at least some semblance of meaning to it ...

.

????.....did you think Christians don't pay taxes?.....

.
the church is tax exempt - GET OUT AND LEAVE YOUR TAX DOLLARS WITH US! - greed has no bounds, when what is begged for already exists ... the church does not contribute to public education and by proxy is subsidised by the US Gov't.

.