The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[Wyatt earp]

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Atheists are, in fact, some of the most religious people.

First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.

Once that’s all settled all that’s left is the preaching.

And they preach all the time.

This new breed of atheists is obsessed with the idea of God. They write books, deliver speeches, comment-bomb the evangelical blogosphere and generally rant on ad nauseam about the ills of believing in God.

Honestly – comically – some atheists must type the word “God” on the Internet five times more often than most Christians I know and they do it with the fury of a fire-and-brimstone zealot!

Maybe no one invokes the name of “God” more than they, and they are doing so in more and more virulent ways such as the shocking moment when Dr. Dawkins recently told Al-Jazeera television that he believed being raised Catholic was in itself even more psychologically damaging than being abused by a priest!

Instead of just ignoring God, or the idea of God, atheist preachers feel somehow compelled to rid the Earth of him; so they argue endlessly that theists can’t prove God exists without confessing that they can’t prove he doesn’t either.

Occasionally, some of them discover that they do indeed worship a God, but it is an insufficient one.

They worship a God that loses his car keys when they are in his hand, or that misplaces the glasses on his face – a God filled with flaws and inadequacies, and a God (themselves) whose probability of helping them supernaturally is absolutely zero.

 

[HUGGY]

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...


You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.


.





Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...


.

I have mixed feelings challenging your posts. You are not especially gifted in processing information and draw conclusions below the level of a young child. I think it is likely that you are retarded. That gives me pause as I don't stoop to a level where I appear to be unkind and unnecessarily rude.

There is no such thing as an atheist's bible. Atheists don't gather together to discuss atheism. Atheists don't have any leaders to look up to or defer to in any conversation regarding the obvious conclusion that there is no god.

There is no organized membership or "card" that one must have to officially give one's opinions regarding the conclusion that there is no god.

In short there is no atheist religion. You are only suggesting there is an atheist religion because you saw it somewhere and based on that suggestion, believe it true.

 

[HUGGY]

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Atheists are, in fact, some of the most religious people.

First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.

Once that’s all settled all that’s left is the preaching.

And they preach all the time.

This new breed of atheists is obsessed with the idea of God. They write books, deliver speeches, comment-bomb the evangelical blogosphere and generally rant on ad nauseam about the ills of believing in God.

Honestly – comically – some atheists must type the word “God” on the Internet five times more often than most Christians I know and they do it with the fury of a fire-and-brimstone zealot!

Maybe no one invokes the name of “God” more than they, and they are doing so in more and more virulent ways such as the shocking moment when Dr. Dawkins recently told Al-Jazeera television that he believed being raised Catholic was in itself even more psychologically damaging than being abused by a priest!

Instead of just ignoring God, or the idea of God, atheist preachers feel somehow compelled to rid the Earth of him; so they argue endlessly that theists can’t prove God exists without confessing that they can’t prove he doesn’t either.

Occasionally, some of them discover that they do indeed worship a God, but it is an insufficient one.

They worship a God that loses his car keys when they are in his hand, or that misplaces the glasses on his face – a God filled with flaws and inadequacies, and a God (themselves) whose probability of helping them supernaturally is absolutely zero.

Wow! What a silly and childlike hypothesis. You have put a lot of weight on a foundation of cards..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Atheists are, in fact, some of the most religious people.

First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.

Once that’s all settled all that’s left is the preaching.

And they preach all the time.

This new breed of atheists is obsessed with the idea of God. They write books, deliver speeches, comment-bomb the evangelical blogosphere and generally rant on ad nauseam about the ills of believing in God.

Honestly – comically – some atheists must type the word “God” on the Internet five times more often than most Christians I know and they do it with the fury of a fire-and-brimstone zealot!

Maybe no one invokes the name of “God” more than they, and they are doing so in more and more virulent ways such as the shocking moment when Dr. Dawkins recently told Al-Jazeera television that he believed being raised Catholic was in itself even more psychologically damaging than being abused by a priest!

Instead of just ignoring God, or the idea of God, atheist preachers feel somehow compelled to rid the Earth of him; so they argue endlessly that theists can’t prove God exists without confessing that they can’t prove he doesn’t either.

Occasionally, some of them discover that they do indeed worship a God, but it is an insufficient one.

They worship a God that loses his car keys when they are in his hand, or that misplaces the glasses on his face – a God filled with flaws and inadequacies, and a God (themselves) whose probability of helping them supernaturally is absolutely zero.

Wow! What a silly and childlike hypothesis. You have put a lot of weight on a foundation of cards..

Lets see first you have mixed feelings and yet want to make a 2nd post in a row?

Save me from your superior intellect I could give a rats ass but it seems to me only atheist can't figure out it is a fucking religion...


God you guys are retarded...


Carry on with preaching God don't exist






.

 

[HUGGY]

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Atheists are, in fact, some of the most religious people.

First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.

Once that’s all settled all that’s left is the preaching.

And they preach all the time.

This new breed of atheists is obsessed with the idea of God. They write books, deliver speeches, comment-bomb the evangelical blogosphere and generally rant on ad nauseam about the ills of believing in God.

Honestly – comically – some atheists must type the word “God” on the Internet five times more often than most Christians I know and they do it with the fury of a fire-and-brimstone zealot!

Maybe no one invokes the name of “God” more than they, and they are doing so in more and more virulent ways such as the shocking moment when Dr. Dawkins recently told Al-Jazeera television that he believed being raised Catholic was in itself even more psychologically damaging than being abused by a priest!

Instead of just ignoring God, or the idea of God, atheist preachers feel somehow compelled to rid the Earth of him; so they argue endlessly that theists can’t prove God exists without confessing that they can’t prove he doesn’t either.

Occasionally, some of them discover that they do indeed worship a God, but it is an insufficient one.

They worship a God that loses his car keys when they are in his hand, or that misplaces the glasses on his face – a God filled with flaws and inadequacies, and a God (themselves) whose probability of helping them supernaturally is absolutely zero.

Wow! What a silly and childlike hypothesis. You have put a lot of weight on a foundation of cards..

Lets see first you have mixed feelings and yet want to make a 2nd post in a row?

Save me from your superior intellect I could give a rats ass but it seems to me only atheist can't figure out it is a fucking religion...


God you guys are retarded...


Carry on with preaching God don't exist






.

How arrogant. The authority you have bestowed on yourself to define the basis of my argument is non existent as is your god.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Atheists are, in fact, some of the most religious people.

First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.

Once that’s all settled all that’s left is the preaching.

And they preach all the time.

This new breed of atheists is obsessed with the idea of God. They write books, deliver speeches, comment-bomb the evangelical blogosphere and generally rant on ad nauseam about the ills of believing in God.

Honestly – comically – some atheists must type the word “God” on the Internet five times more often than most Christians I know and they do it with the fury of a fire-and-brimstone zealot!

Maybe no one invokes the name of “God” more than they, and they are doing so in more and more virulent ways such as the shocking moment when Dr. Dawkins recently told Al-Jazeera television that he believed being raised Catholic was in itself even more psychologically damaging than being abused by a priest!

Instead of just ignoring God, or the idea of God, atheist preachers feel somehow compelled to rid the Earth of him; so they argue endlessly that theists can’t prove God exists without confessing that they can’t prove he doesn’t either.

Occasionally, some of them discover that they do indeed worship a God, but it is an insufficient one.

They worship a God that loses his car keys when they are in his hand, or that misplaces the glasses on his face – a God filled with flaws and inadequacies, and a God (themselves) whose probability of helping them supernaturally is absolutely zero.

Wow! What a silly and childlike hypothesis. You have put a lot of weight on a foundation of cards..

Lets see first you have mixed feelings and yet want to make a 2nd post in a row?

Save me from your superior intellect I could give a rats ass but it seems to me only atheist can't figure out it is a fucking religion...


God you guys are retarded...


Carry on with preaching God don't exist






.

How arrogant. The authority you have bestowed on yourself to define the basis of my argument is non existent as is your god.

 

[Boss]

Something was happening when these people experienced their version of religious phenomena, and the scans lit up like Robert Redford's suit in The Electric Horseman.

This does not prove God exists, but it does show humans are wired or biologically predisposed to believe in something. When I interviewed him for this article, Newberg said his research demonstrates that "we are wired to have these beliefs about the world, to get at the fundamental stuff the universe is about. For many people, it includes God and for some it doesn't.

I think this makes an interesting point and really dovetails nicely with my views on Spiritual Nature and Spiritualism. Regardless of what theories you may have or your conviction in your preferred beliefs, one thing we can clearly see is that humans are inclined toward light and away from dark... toward goodness and away from evil. We are able to experience gratification from selflessness. Something greater than us is driving this inclination we have... it's not just there, because...

Even when we accept the Atheist Scientism that we're simply moral so that we can pass on our genes... Why are we inclined to pass on our genes? What makes that matter? Why do we care to "get along" with competitors for our food and resources? No matter how you look at it... humans have a natural inclination toward good... away from evil... toward the light... away from the dark.

 

[sealybobo]

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...


You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.


.





Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...


.

It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...


You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.


.





Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...


.

It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.

Yup Atheism is a religion to you.



You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in

And have to constantly preach about it.


You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.



.

 

[HUGGY]

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...


You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.


.





Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...


.

It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.

If enough people believe a lie then it becomes the truth. Happens all of the time. The crazy single bullet that killed Kennedy and went all over the place and wounded Connally? Curveball? a criminal that couldn't have been a witness in a traffic speeding trial responsible for our going to war with Iraq?

 

[HUGGY]

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...


You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.


.





Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...


.

It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.

Yup Atheism is a religion to you.



You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in

And have to constantly preach about it.


You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.



.

Watch your mouth ingrate. Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...


You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.


.





Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...


.

It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.

Yup Atheism is a religion to you.



You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in

And have to constantly preach about it.


You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.



.

Watch your mouth ingrate. Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.

When did I cuss? Oh , that would be you and why are you so upset anyways?

Quit being so butthurt that I am attacking your religion of Atheism...

.

 

[Abishai100]

Intelligent Design: Bond Breaks

There is such an intricate geometrical sophistication at the molecular level of organic life that it's difficult to conceive that a higher-order intelligence is not responsible for an overall 'master-plan,' however, with the advent of computers and the understanding of self-organizing algorithms, scientists today can imagine and formulate models of autonomous or 'adaptive' organic orientation.

The study of protein folding, for example, illuminates many levels of geometric sophistication related to the value of protein bond strengths. Bond strengths give us an arrow of molecular reactivity (and compatibility) and help molecules determine pathways of structural 'assignments.'

Scientific institutions such as Scripps and Salk invest in the study of protein bond strength, so how can such study help us better appreciate the organic splendour of molecular blueprints?

In other words, would it be prudent to ask a question such as, "Could intelligent design be BOTH directional (and hence directed) AND self-made (and hence creator-independent)?"


Mechanisms of Protein Formation (NIH)

 

[ChrisL]

You wanting to paint atheism as a religion does not make it so. I understand that you need to vilify atheists to fit into your version of reality. It must be a shock to your entire belief system that the foundation, god, is rejected.

By no sane measure can you assign "religion" as a definition to someone not believing in a god. I have no faith in your delusions. There has been nothing discovered in 2000 years that resembles actual proof in your god or any component in your religion's bible. That alone makes being an atheist the most logical conclusion.

Atheists have no documents we must refer to.

Atheists have no need to gather together to arrive at the understanding that no god exists.

By any and all measure being an atheist is nothing like what those that believe in gods and fairy tales believe and act like.

You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...


You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.


.





Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...


.

It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.

Yup Atheism is a religion to you.



You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in

And have to constantly preach about it.


You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.



.

Watch your mouth ingrate. Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.

When did I cuss? Oh , that would be you and why are you so upset anyways?

Quit being so butthurt that I am attacking your religion of Atheism...

.

Atheism is not a religion in any sense of the word. Lol. ReligionLESS is what you mean to say.

Full Definition of religion

1. 1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
   
   
2. 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
   
   
3. 3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
   
   
4. 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
   

 

[ChrisL]

You Can't Win! 20 reasons an American Christian... - Basic Atheism - Quora

Excerpt:

1. Wrong focus. Early in any discussion with American Christians, it often becomes apparent to me that they are listening to me (or reading my words) solely to find something to refute, rather than trying to understand or learnabout atheists and atheism. What I have noticed is that they ignore what I have written when it varies from the response they were expecting. They just go on to the next question on their Apologetics check list. They also ignore any questions I may ask of them, while insisting I should answer all questions of theirs. When I offer an explanation about something with five or six points, and the Christian comes back quibbling about something in just one of those points, while ignoring the rest, I’m pretty sure of what’s going on. They don’t care about my explanation. They are only interested in finding something to disagree with. It's a losing strategy.
2. Flawed expertise. I don’t know how many times I’ve offered the standard definition of atheism shared by most 21st century atheists, “atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods,” and had the Christian tell me, “No, that’s an agnostic. An atheist believes God does not exist.”
   Now, I have been a declared atheist for seven decades, and I’m pretty sure I know where I, and most of the atheists I know, stand on this question. An a-theist is a non-theist. Theists believe in a personal god. Atheists have no such belief. That's it.
   The social rule is: Each side gets to define what it stands for. So don’t try to tell me what I do and don’t believe. That's insupportable arrogance, and you’ll just end up looking bad.[4, 5]
3. Unsupported assertions. This is another tactic that plays well in the church basement, but not so well in a real discussion. The Christian will declare that atheism is just another religion. Or may say that since atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, atheism is a belief just like Christianity. That’s when atheists start talking about unicorns, elves, fairies, and teapots, and the Christians get upset, because they think we are comparing fairy tale creatures to their god. We’re not. We’re comparing belief with lack of belief.[6]
   I’ve also had Christians tell me that atheists worship science or worship evolution. We are not worshipers. Really. Christians worship; we don’t.
4. Analogy is not evidence; neither is metaphor. American Christians love analogies. When I said I had never seen any compelling evidence for the existence of their god, one suggested:
   Let's use storybooks . . . where we are the storybook characters - the constructed personality in a world constructed to be bound by physical laws. Characters in a storybook never know who their author is, and that is consistent with the experience of "never encountering any credible, objective, verifiable evidence of an author". But the fact that there's a story implies that there is an author. Anybody outside the book knows this, but the characters within the book can only infer this, but never have solid proof. Is that acceptable as a viewpoint?
   That's an analogy. As explanation by example, it's fine. As evidence, it is meaningless. There is no more evidence that writing a book models the origin of the universe correctly than there is that the universe was created by a deity.
   Another person had the notion that the metaphor "heart and soul" in some way bolstered the idea that humans have a soul. It doesn't. It's a saying, not evidence.
5. Bad science. If you learned what you know of science, specifically biology, physics, and cosmology, from an Apologetics web site, you are entering the ring blindfolded with both hands tied behind you. Here's the dirty little secret: Christian apologists are not trying to win a debate with actual scientists. They can't. They are simply trying to offer aid and comfort to the faithful. So what they say doesn't need to be real science, it just has to sound scientific to those who don't know any better. But it won't work in a discussion with an atheist who actually knows something about biology, the theory of evolution, or the Anthropic Principle.
6. Bad logic. American Christians are terrible at logic. They are unaware of what constitutes a logical argument. They are unaware of the logical fallacies they often commit. And they seem not to realize that a proposition can be logical without being true.
7. The Bible isn't proof. A book cannot be the evidence of its own veracity. That requires outside corroboration. Christians are so in the habit of quoting passages from the Bible to one another to make a point -- these are called "proof texts" -- that they either forget, or are unaware, that the words of a sacred text are not acceptable evidence to an unbeliever.
8. Absence of a scientific answer is not proof of a god. For example, some American Christians claim that since science is (so far) unable to create life from inert materials then life must have been created by their god, as it says in the Bible.[7] Atheists would answer that creation of life by a god is one hypothesis among many, and the least testable of all hypotheses.
   Here's a college student trying to set up a winning situation for himself:
   Science had always strived [sic] to find a non divine explanation for the world; without one you have to admit there must be a Creator, right?
   Josh Miller's answer to What would Christians (or other theists) on Quora like to discuss about belief/faith/God/Christianity with longtime atheists?
   Now, that proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. (If you don't know why, check out my response at: Barry Hampe's answer to How can one believe in science and religion at the same time?)
   Atheists would also point out the long list of things that used to be attributed to some god that are now explained by science. Science loves to say, "We don't know," how something happened and then work to find out how it did.
9. Atheists are not neutral parties. Occasionally some Christian will criticize the atheist they are talking with for not maintaining "rational neutrality," in the discussion. This is silly. Atheists are not neutral. They are a-theists, "not theists." Theists believe in some god. Atheists have no such belief. (See point #3.)
   Christians sometimes seem to think that an atheist has an obligation to keep searching for some god until they either find it or die. Atheists are convinced that all gods are myths, not just the one the Christians don't believe in. Christians sometimes equate atheism with skepticism and try to insist that a skeptic must keep an open mind (until he either finds god or dies). Atheists reply that skepticism is a process and atheism is the result of that process.
   Atheists can't be neutral. We do have a dog in this fight.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You Can't Win! 20 reasons an American Christian... - Basic Atheism - Quora

Excerpt:

1. Wrong focus. Early in any discussion with American Christians, it often becomes apparent to me that they are listening to me (or reading my words) solely to find something to refute, rather than trying to understand or learnabout atheists and atheism. What I have noticed is that they ignore what I have written when it varies from the response they were expecting. They just go on to the next question on their Apologetics check list. They also ignore any questions I may ask of them, while insisting I should answer all questions of theirs. When I offer an explanation about something with five or six points, and the Christian comes back quibbling about something in just one of those points, while ignoring the rest, I’m pretty sure of what’s going on. They don’t care about my explanation. They are only interested in finding something to disagree with. It's a losing strategy.
2. Flawed expertise. I don’t know how many times I’ve offered the standard definition of atheism shared by most 21st century atheists, “atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods,” and had the Christian tell me, “No, that’s an agnostic. An atheist believes God does not exist.”
   Now, I have been a declared atheist for seven decades, and I’m pretty sure I know where I, and most of the atheists I know, stand on this question. An a-theist is a non-theist. Theists believe in a personal god. Atheists have no such belief. That's it.
   The social rule is: Each side gets to define what it stands for. So don’t try to tell me what I do and don’t believe. That's insupportable arrogance, and you’ll just end up looking bad.[4, 5]
3. Unsupported assertions. This is another tactic that plays well in the church basement, but not so well in a real discussion. The Christian will declare that atheism is just another religion. Or may say that since atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, atheism is a belief just like Christianity. That’s when atheists start talking about unicorns, elves, fairies, and teapots, and the Christians get upset, because they think we are comparing fairy tale creatures to their god. We’re not. We’re comparing belief with lack of belief.[6]
   I’ve also had Christians tell me that atheists worship science or worship evolution. We are not worshipers. Really. Christians worship; we don’t.
4. Analogy is not evidence; neither is metaphor. American Christians love analogies. When I said I had never seen any compelling evidence for the existence of their god, one suggested:
   Let's use storybooks . . . where we are the storybook characters - the constructed personality in a world constructed to be bound by physical laws. Characters in a storybook never know who their author is, and that is consistent with the experience of "never encountering any credible, objective, verifiable evidence of an author". But the fact that there's a story implies that there is an author. Anybody outside the book knows this, but the characters within the book can only infer this, but never have solid proof. Is that acceptable as a viewpoint?
   That's an analogy. As explanation by example, it's fine. As evidence, it is meaningless. There is no more evidence that writing a book models the origin of the universe correctly than there is that the universe was created by a deity.
   Another person had the notion that the metaphor "heart and soul" in some way bolstered the idea that humans have a soul. It doesn't. It's a saying, not evidence.
5. Bad science. If you learned what you know of science, specifically biology, physics, and cosmology, from an Apologetics web site, you are entering the ring blindfolded with both hands tied behind you. Here's the dirty little secret: Christian apologists are not trying to win a debate with actual scientists. They can't. They are simply trying to offer aid and comfort to the faithful. So what they say doesn't need to be real science, it just has to sound scientific to those who don't know any better. But it won't work in a discussion with an atheist who actually knows something about biology, the theory of evolution, or the Anthropic Principle.
6. Bad logic. American Christians are terrible at logic. They are unaware of what constitutes a logical argument. They are unaware of the logical fallacies they often commit. And they seem not to realize that a proposition can be logical without being true.
7. The Bible isn't proof. A book cannot be the evidence of its own veracity. That requires outside corroboration. Christians are so in the habit of quoting passages from the Bible to one another to make a point -- these are called "proof texts" -- that they either forget, or are unaware, that the words of a sacred text are not acceptable evidence to an unbeliever.
8. Absence of a scientific answer is not proof of a god. For example, some American Christians claim that since science is (so far) unable to create life from inert materials then life must have been created by their god, as it says in the Bible.[7] Atheists would answer that creation of life by a god is one hypothesis among many, and the least testable of all hypotheses.
   Here's a college student trying to set up a winning situation for himself:
   Science had always strived [sic] to find a non divine explanation for the world; without one you have to admit there must be a Creator, right?
   Josh Miller's answer to What would Christians (or other theists) on Quora like to discuss about belief/faith/God/Christianity with longtime atheists?
   Now, that proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. (If you don't know why, check out my response at: Barry Hampe's answer to How can one believe in science and religion at the same time?)
   Atheists would also point out the long list of things that used to be attributed to some god that are now explained by science. Science loves to say, "We don't know," how something happened and then work to find out how it did.
9. Atheists are not neutral parties. Occasionally some Christian will criticize the atheist they are talking with for not maintaining "rational neutrality," in the discussion. This is silly. Atheists are not neutral. They are a-theists, "not theists." Theists believe in some god. Atheists have no such belief. (See point #3.)
   Christians sometimes seem to think that an atheist has an obligation to keep searching for some god until they either find it or die. Atheists are convinced that all gods are myths, not just the one the Christians don't believe in. Christians sometimes equate atheism with skepticism and try to insist that a skeptic must keep an open mind (until he either finds god or dies). Atheists reply that skepticism is a process and atheism is the result of that process.
   Atheists can't be neutral. We do have a dog in this fight.

Again sure a lot of preaching going on.


.

 

[ChrisL]

You Can't Win! 20 reasons an American Christian... - Basic Atheism - Quora

Excerpt:

1. Wrong focus. Early in any discussion with American Christians, it often becomes apparent to me that they are listening to me (or reading my words) solely to find something to refute, rather than trying to understand or learnabout atheists and atheism. What I have noticed is that they ignore what I have written when it varies from the response they were expecting. They just go on to the next question on their Apologetics check list. They also ignore any questions I may ask of them, while insisting I should answer all questions of theirs. When I offer an explanation about something with five or six points, and the Christian comes back quibbling about something in just one of those points, while ignoring the rest, I’m pretty sure of what’s going on. They don’t care about my explanation. They are only interested in finding something to disagree with. It's a losing strategy.
2. Flawed expertise. I don’t know how many times I’ve offered the standard definition of atheism shared by most 21st century atheists, “atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods,” and had the Christian tell me, “No, that’s an agnostic. An atheist believes God does not exist.”
   Now, I have been a declared atheist for seven decades, and I’m pretty sure I know where I, and most of the atheists I know, stand on this question. An a-theist is a non-theist. Theists believe in a personal god. Atheists have no such belief. That's it.
   The social rule is: Each side gets to define what it stands for. So don’t try to tell me what I do and don’t believe. That's insupportable arrogance, and you’ll just end up looking bad.[4, 5]
3. Unsupported assertions. This is another tactic that plays well in the church basement, but not so well in a real discussion. The Christian will declare that atheism is just another religion. Or may say that since atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, atheism is a belief just like Christianity. That’s when atheists start talking about unicorns, elves, fairies, and teapots, and the Christians get upset, because they think we are comparing fairy tale creatures to their god. We’re not. We’re comparing belief with lack of belief.[6]
   I’ve also had Christians tell me that atheists worship science or worship evolution. We are not worshipers. Really. Christians worship; we don’t.
4. Analogy is not evidence; neither is metaphor. American Christians love analogies. When I said I had never seen any compelling evidence for the existence of their god, one suggested:
   Let's use storybooks . . . where we are the storybook characters - the constructed personality in a world constructed to be bound by physical laws. Characters in a storybook never know who their author is, and that is consistent with the experience of "never encountering any credible, objective, verifiable evidence of an author". But the fact that there's a story implies that there is an author. Anybody outside the book knows this, but the characters within the book can only infer this, but never have solid proof. Is that acceptable as a viewpoint?
   That's an analogy. As explanation by example, it's fine. As evidence, it is meaningless. There is no more evidence that writing a book models the origin of the universe correctly than there is that the universe was created by a deity.
   Another person had the notion that the metaphor "heart and soul" in some way bolstered the idea that humans have a soul. It doesn't. It's a saying, not evidence.
5. Bad science. If you learned what you know of science, specifically biology, physics, and cosmology, from an Apologetics web site, you are entering the ring blindfolded with both hands tied behind you. Here's the dirty little secret: Christian apologists are not trying to win a debate with actual scientists. They can't. They are simply trying to offer aid and comfort to the faithful. So what they say doesn't need to be real science, it just has to sound scientific to those who don't know any better. But it won't work in a discussion with an atheist who actually knows something about biology, the theory of evolution, or the Anthropic Principle.
6. Bad logic. American Christians are terrible at logic. They are unaware of what constitutes a logical argument. They are unaware of the logical fallacies they often commit. And they seem not to realize that a proposition can be logical without being true.
7. The Bible isn't proof. A book cannot be the evidence of its own veracity. That requires outside corroboration. Christians are so in the habit of quoting passages from the Bible to one another to make a point -- these are called "proof texts" -- that they either forget, or are unaware, that the words of a sacred text are not acceptable evidence to an unbeliever.
8. Absence of a scientific answer is not proof of a god. For example, some American Christians claim that since science is (so far) unable to create life from inert materials then life must have been created by their god, as it says in the Bible.[7] Atheists would answer that creation of life by a god is one hypothesis among many, and the least testable of all hypotheses.
   Here's a college student trying to set up a winning situation for himself:
   Science had always strived [sic] to find a non divine explanation for the world; without one you have to admit there must be a Creator, right?
   Josh Miller's answer to What would Christians (or other theists) on Quora like to discuss about belief/faith/God/Christianity with longtime atheists?
   Now, that proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. (If you don't know why, check out my response at: Barry Hampe's answer to How can one believe in science and religion at the same time?)
   Atheists would also point out the long list of things that used to be attributed to some god that are now explained by science. Science loves to say, "We don't know," how something happened and then work to find out how it did.
9. Atheists are not neutral parties. Occasionally some Christian will criticize the atheist they are talking with for not maintaining "rational neutrality," in the discussion. This is silly. Atheists are not neutral. They are a-theists, "not theists." Theists believe in some god. Atheists have no such belief. (See point #3.)
   Christians sometimes seem to think that an atheist has an obligation to keep searching for some god until they either find it or die. Atheists are convinced that all gods are myths, not just the one the Christians don't believe in. Christians sometimes equate atheism with skepticism and try to insist that a skeptic must keep an open mind (until he either finds god or dies). Atheists reply that skepticism is a process and atheism is the result of that process.
   Atheists can't be neutral. We do have a dog in this fight.

Again sure a lot of preaching going on.


.

Is that what you consider it when you are proven to be wrong? Lol.

 

[sealybobo]

You and silly boo boo spending all this time defending and posting the atheist bible on here...


You guys are just confirming what I knew all along that atheism is a New religion.


.





Some one who don't believe is just that someone who don't believe and wouldn't waste their time on what they would consider nonsense...


.

It's that important to me the human race stops this religion bullshit. If you don't see the problem with more than 50% of the population believing a lie, you're part of the problem.

Yup Atheism is a religion to you.



You must stop the belief in something you don't believe in

And have to constantly preach about it.


You ilk is as bad as the bible thumpers.



.

Watch your mouth ingrate. Start being a rude little fuck and this conversation is over.

When did I cuss? Oh , that would be you and why are you so upset anyways?

Quit being so butthurt that I am attacking your religion of Atheism...

.

Atheism is not a religion in any sense of the word. Lol. ReligionLESS is what you mean to say.

Full Definition of religion

1. 1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
   
   
2. 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
   
   
3. 3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
   
   
4. 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

And they get upset when we cut and paste rather than type it out in our own words for the 100th time. Why bother when we have such a great source that explains why every argument they make is a bad one.

Atheism takes faith / is a religion.
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

 

[sealybobo]

You Can't Win! 20 reasons an American Christian... - Basic Atheism - Quora

Excerpt:

1. Wrong focus. Early in any discussion with American Christians, it often becomes apparent to me that they are listening to me (or reading my words) solely to find something to refute, rather than trying to understand or learnabout atheists and atheism. What I have noticed is that they ignore what I have written when it varies from the response they were expecting. They just go on to the next question on their Apologetics check list. They also ignore any questions I may ask of them, while insisting I should answer all questions of theirs. When I offer an explanation about something with five or six points, and the Christian comes back quibbling about something in just one of those points, while ignoring the rest, I’m pretty sure of what’s going on. They don’t care about my explanation. They are only interested in finding something to disagree with. It's a losing strategy.
2. Flawed expertise. I don’t know how many times I’ve offered the standard definition of atheism shared by most 21st century atheists, “atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods,” and had the Christian tell me, “No, that’s an agnostic. An atheist believes God does not exist.”
   Now, I have been a declared atheist for seven decades, and I’m pretty sure I know where I, and most of the atheists I know, stand on this question. An a-theist is a non-theist. Theists believe in a personal god. Atheists have no such belief. That's it.
   The social rule is: Each side gets to define what it stands for. So don’t try to tell me what I do and don’t believe. That's insupportable arrogance, and you’ll just end up looking bad.[4, 5]
3. Unsupported assertions. This is another tactic that plays well in the church basement, but not so well in a real discussion. The Christian will declare that atheism is just another religion. Or may say that since atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, atheism is a belief just like Christianity. That’s when atheists start talking about unicorns, elves, fairies, and teapots, and the Christians get upset, because they think we are comparing fairy tale creatures to their god. We’re not. We’re comparing belief with lack of belief.[6]
   I’ve also had Christians tell me that atheists worship science or worship evolution. We are not worshipers. Really. Christians worship; we don’t.
4. Analogy is not evidence; neither is metaphor. American Christians love analogies. When I said I had never seen any compelling evidence for the existence of their god, one suggested:
   Let's use storybooks . . . where we are the storybook characters - the constructed personality in a world constructed to be bound by physical laws. Characters in a storybook never know who their author is, and that is consistent with the experience of "never encountering any credible, objective, verifiable evidence of an author". But the fact that there's a story implies that there is an author. Anybody outside the book knows this, but the characters within the book can only infer this, but never have solid proof. Is that acceptable as a viewpoint?
   That's an analogy. As explanation by example, it's fine. As evidence, it is meaningless. There is no more evidence that writing a book models the origin of the universe correctly than there is that the universe was created by a deity.
   Another person had the notion that the metaphor "heart and soul" in some way bolstered the idea that humans have a soul. It doesn't. It's a saying, not evidence.
5. Bad science. If you learned what you know of science, specifically biology, physics, and cosmology, from an Apologetics web site, you are entering the ring blindfolded with both hands tied behind you. Here's the dirty little secret: Christian apologists are not trying to win a debate with actual scientists. They can't. They are simply trying to offer aid and comfort to the faithful. So what they say doesn't need to be real science, it just has to sound scientific to those who don't know any better. But it won't work in a discussion with an atheist who actually knows something about biology, the theory of evolution, or the Anthropic Principle.
6. Bad logic. American Christians are terrible at logic. They are unaware of what constitutes a logical argument. They are unaware of the logical fallacies they often commit. And they seem not to realize that a proposition can be logical without being true.
7. The Bible isn't proof. A book cannot be the evidence of its own veracity. That requires outside corroboration. Christians are so in the habit of quoting passages from the Bible to one another to make a point -- these are called "proof texts" -- that they either forget, or are unaware, that the words of a sacred text are not acceptable evidence to an unbeliever.
8. Absence of a scientific answer is not proof of a god. For example, some American Christians claim that since science is (so far) unable to create life from inert materials then life must have been created by their god, as it says in the Bible.[7] Atheists would answer that creation of life by a god is one hypothesis among many, and the least testable of all hypotheses.
   Here's a college student trying to set up a winning situation for himself:
   Science had always strived [sic] to find a non divine explanation for the world; without one you have to admit there must be a Creator, right?
   Josh Miller's answer to What would Christians (or other theists) on Quora like to discuss about belief/faith/God/Christianity with longtime atheists?
   Now, that proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. (If you don't know why, check out my response at: Barry Hampe's answer to How can one believe in science and religion at the same time?)
   Atheists would also point out the long list of things that used to be attributed to some god that are now explained by science. Science loves to say, "We don't know," how something happened and then work to find out how it did.
9. Atheists are not neutral parties. Occasionally some Christian will criticize the atheist they are talking with for not maintaining "rational neutrality," in the discussion. This is silly. Atheists are not neutral. They are a-theists, "not theists." Theists believe in some god. Atheists have no such belief. (See point #3.)
   Christians sometimes seem to think that an atheist has an obligation to keep searching for some god until they either find it or die. Atheists are convinced that all gods are myths, not just the one the Christians don't believe in. Christians sometimes equate atheism with skepticism and try to insist that a skeptic must keep an open mind (until he either finds god or dies). Atheists reply that skepticism is a process and atheism is the result of that process.
   Atheists can't be neutral. We do have a dog in this fight.

Again sure a lot of preaching going on.


.

Is that what you consider it when you are proven to be wrong? Lol.

He may be right that we are preaching.


· publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief).

synonyms:

proclaim, teach, spread, propagate, expound

· earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action).

synonyms:

advocate, recommend, advise, urge, teach, counsel

· give moral advice to someone in an annoying or pompously self-righteous way.

synonyms:

moralize, sermonize, pontificate, lecture, harangue;

 

[ChrisL]

You Can't Win! 20 reasons an American Christian... - Basic Atheism - Quora

Excerpt:

1. Wrong focus. Early in any discussion with American Christians, it often becomes apparent to me that they are listening to me (or reading my words) solely to find something to refute, rather than trying to understand or learnabout atheists and atheism. What I have noticed is that they ignore what I have written when it varies from the response they were expecting. They just go on to the next question on their Apologetics check list. They also ignore any questions I may ask of them, while insisting I should answer all questions of theirs. When I offer an explanation about something with five or six points, and the Christian comes back quibbling about something in just one of those points, while ignoring the rest, I’m pretty sure of what’s going on. They don’t care about my explanation. They are only interested in finding something to disagree with. It's a losing strategy.
2. Flawed expertise. I don’t know how many times I’ve offered the standard definition of atheism shared by most 21st century atheists, “atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods,” and had the Christian tell me, “No, that’s an agnostic. An atheist believes God does not exist.”
   Now, I have been a declared atheist for seven decades, and I’m pretty sure I know where I, and most of the atheists I know, stand on this question. An a-theist is a non-theist. Theists believe in a personal god. Atheists have no such belief. That's it.
   The social rule is: Each side gets to define what it stands for. So don’t try to tell me what I do and don’t believe. That's insupportable arrogance, and you’ll just end up looking bad.[4, 5]
3. Unsupported assertions. This is another tactic that plays well in the church basement, but not so well in a real discussion. The Christian will declare that atheism is just another religion. Or may say that since atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, atheism is a belief just like Christianity. That’s when atheists start talking about unicorns, elves, fairies, and teapots, and the Christians get upset, because they think we are comparing fairy tale creatures to their god. We’re not. We’re comparing belief with lack of belief.[6]
   I’ve also had Christians tell me that atheists worship science or worship evolution. We are not worshipers. Really. Christians worship; we don’t.
4. Analogy is not evidence; neither is metaphor. American Christians love analogies. When I said I had never seen any compelling evidence for the existence of their god, one suggested:
   Let's use storybooks . . . where we are the storybook characters - the constructed personality in a world constructed to be bound by physical laws. Characters in a storybook never know who their author is, and that is consistent with the experience of "never encountering any credible, objective, verifiable evidence of an author". But the fact that there's a story implies that there is an author. Anybody outside the book knows this, but the characters within the book can only infer this, but never have solid proof. Is that acceptable as a viewpoint?
   That's an analogy. As explanation by example, it's fine. As evidence, it is meaningless. There is no more evidence that writing a book models the origin of the universe correctly than there is that the universe was created by a deity.
   Another person had the notion that the metaphor "heart and soul" in some way bolstered the idea that humans have a soul. It doesn't. It's a saying, not evidence.
5. Bad science. If you learned what you know of science, specifically biology, physics, and cosmology, from an Apologetics web site, you are entering the ring blindfolded with both hands tied behind you. Here's the dirty little secret: Christian apologists are not trying to win a debate with actual scientists. They can't. They are simply trying to offer aid and comfort to the faithful. So what they say doesn't need to be real science, it just has to sound scientific to those who don't know any better. But it won't work in a discussion with an atheist who actually knows something about biology, the theory of evolution, or the Anthropic Principle.
6. Bad logic. American Christians are terrible at logic. They are unaware of what constitutes a logical argument. They are unaware of the logical fallacies they often commit. And they seem not to realize that a proposition can be logical without being true.
7. The Bible isn't proof. A book cannot be the evidence of its own veracity. That requires outside corroboration. Christians are so in the habit of quoting passages from the Bible to one another to make a point -- these are called "proof texts" -- that they either forget, or are unaware, that the words of a sacred text are not acceptable evidence to an unbeliever.
8. Absence of a scientific answer is not proof of a god. For example, some American Christians claim that since science is (so far) unable to create life from inert materials then life must have been created by their god, as it says in the Bible.[7] Atheists would answer that creation of life by a god is one hypothesis among many, and the least testable of all hypotheses.
   Here's a college student trying to set up a winning situation for himself:
   Science had always strived [sic] to find a non divine explanation for the world; without one you have to admit there must be a Creator, right?
   Josh Miller's answer to What would Christians (or other theists) on Quora like to discuss about belief/faith/God/Christianity with longtime atheists?
   Now, that proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. (If you don't know why, check out my response at: Barry Hampe's answer to How can one believe in science and religion at the same time?)
   Atheists would also point out the long list of things that used to be attributed to some god that are now explained by science. Science loves to say, "We don't know," how something happened and then work to find out how it did.
9. Atheists are not neutral parties. Occasionally some Christian will criticize the atheist they are talking with for not maintaining "rational neutrality," in the discussion. This is silly. Atheists are not neutral. They are a-theists, "not theists." Theists believe in some god. Atheists have no such belief. (See point #3.)
   Christians sometimes seem to think that an atheist has an obligation to keep searching for some god until they either find it or die. Atheists are convinced that all gods are myths, not just the one the Christians don't believe in. Christians sometimes equate atheism with skepticism and try to insist that a skeptic must keep an open mind (until he either finds god or dies). Atheists reply that skepticism is a process and atheism is the result of that process.
   Atheists can't be neutral. We do have a dog in this fight.

Again sure a lot of preaching going on.


.

Is that what you consider it when you are proven to be wrong? Lol.

He may be right that we are preaching.


· publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief).

synonyms:

proclaim, teach, spread, propagate, expound

· earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action).

synonyms:

advocate, recommend, advise, urge, teach, counsel

· give moral advice to someone in an annoying or pompously self-righteous way.

synonyms:

moralize, sermonize, pontificate, lecture, harangue;

I didn't preach. I just posted some facts. Religious people HATE facts.