More pity for the atheists.

[Guest Guest]

But when the Biblical "Absolutism" you quote is incorrect, It leaves you with no platform for your attack. Here's a little tidbit.. the Bible wasnt written in English, it was Written (The old Testament) in Hebrew....and it does NOT say, despite your repeated contentions "Thous hall not Kill" It says "You Cannot commit Murder" Quod est necessarium est licitum...of course the fact that you are tying ti use a text which YOU believe to be fiction, and continually ridicule to Justify your point, is the equivalent of my using a Science Fiction in a Quantum Physics course as an example of of Alcubierre Theory in practice.

And if that is too Subtle...i'll simplify...... Im not ridiculing your Point, i am Ridiculing YOU. YOU are the guy that gives Atheists a bad name, YOU are the Douchebag who is so Smugly confident in your own Superiority you take every possible opportunity to try to make anyone with ANY kind of faith out to be a sub-intelligent Moron. Now, ARE There Christians who believe that the world is only 6000 year old?? Of course there are, and they ARE Delusional IMO..but that doesnt make EVERY Christian so, just like MOST Atheists are NOT Douchebags like YOU and allow people to have their own Beliefs. What is so Horrible about Christians?? or Muslims, or Buddists, or Shintoists, or Taoists..i can go on. Here's a thought...go and live YOUR Life,.....Believe what YOU will, and stop Proselytizing...because that is EXACTLY what you are doing.....you're an Atheistic Jehova's Witness Pal...trying to harass people into believing what you do.

There is no evidence that any god exists. What would you have me do about it?

[Guest Guest]

Here's a thought...go and live YOUR Life,.....Believe what YOU will, and stop Proselytizing...because that is EXACTLY what you are doing.....you're an Atheistic Jehova's Witness Pal...trying to harass people into believing what you do.

False. Here are two important differences:

--- Posting my opinion on a community forum board is not harassment. Sounds like you're becoming defensive about a belief system you know does not withstand scrutiny.

--- My posts and the posts of other non-theists here are based on evidence and reason, they are not arbitrary claims with no basis in fact or reason.

What I hold in common with proselytizers is that I seek to change your mind. Why else bother having a discussion? If you don't like it, you are not a captive audience, and are not required either to read on this board or participate in it.

[Guest Guest]

Im not ridiculing your Point, i am Ridiculing YOU. YOU are the guy that gives Atheists a bad name, YOU are the Douchebag who is so Smugly confident in your own Superiority you take every possible opportunity to try to make anyone with ANY kind of faith out to be a sub-intelligent Moron. Now, ARE There Christians who believe that the world is only 6000 year old?? Of course there are, and they ARE Delusional IMO..but that doesnt make EVERY Christian so, just like MOST Atheists are NOT Douchebags like YOU and allow people to have their own Beliefs.

That is a ridiculous set of claims, implying that by posting here on a local chat board, a few non-theists are disallowing people from having their own beliefs. No matter how forcefully we state our case, we have no power to disallow anyone's beliefs.

Second, an atheist or non-theist did not open this topic. It was opened to attack us. Seems to me that you're upset we have the better of the argument, by far. I don't know how you glean smugness or self-superiority from any of this; you may be confusing that with ideas that are sufficiently well-expressed to threaten your belief system. I don't know that but it does come to mind.

Third, no one here has said what you claim has been said. Again, this suggests that the arguments being made against your beliefs are getting to you. That statement doesn't challenge you to respond, it's just an observation you might want to take a deep breath, relax (we can read your words equally well if they're not capitalized) and think about.

Fourth, by your own admission, your intent is not to comment on the points being made but to ridicule the people making them. You undermine everything you write with that admission.

[Guest Kearny Christian]

There is no evidence that any god exists. What would you have me do about it?

Can anyone really believe that all the billions of life forms came about from a single amoeba and all the abundant natural resources to sustain those life forms are there as a matter of happenstance ? I pity the atheists who are missing out on the love and joy of religious belief. Evidence of that lack of love and joy is the anger displayed over a cross from the WTC. Atheists should be prayed for and shown compassionate tolerance.

[Guest Guest]

Laughing so hard it is almost painful....you guys are incredible, and living up to what i posted...because you ASSume, wrongly that because i Think you are a pack of flaming Douchebags, that I am in fact a Christian. Thanks for proving my point, and i Reiterate....it's douchebags like YOU GUYS that make the rest of us Atheists who really Dont give a damn what anyone else believes Cringe every time you open your Man Pleasers.

[Guest Guest]

There is no evidence that any god exists. What would you have me do about it?

Great question. Don't expect an answer. They don't have one. They want to tell their fairy tale. If you call it for what it is, you're the one with the problem.

[Guest Guest]

But when the Biblical "Absolutism" you quote is incorrect, It leaves you with no platform for your attack. Here's a little tidbit.. the Bible wasnt written in English, it was Written (The old Testament) in Hebrew....and it does NOT say, despite your repeated contentions "Thous hall not Kill" It says "You Cannot commit Murder" Quod est necessarium est licitum...of course the fact that you are tying ti use a text which YOU believe to be fiction, and continually ridicule to Justify your point, is the equivalent of my using a Science Fiction in a Quantum Physics course as an example of of Alcubierre Theory in practice.

And if that is too Subtle...i'll simplify...... Im not ridiculing your Point, i am Ridiculing YOU. YOU are the guy that gives Atheists a bad name, YOU are the Douchebag who is so Smugly confident in your own Superiority you take every possible opportunity to try to make anyone with ANY kind of faith out to be a sub-intelligent Moron. Now, ARE There Christians who believe that the world is only 6000 year old?? Of course there are, and they ARE Delusional IMO..but that doesnt make EVERY Christian so, just like MOST Atheists are NOT Douchebags like YOU and allow people to have their own Beliefs. What is so Horrible about Christians?? or Muslims, or Buddists, or Shintoists, or Taoists..i can go on. Here's a thought...go and live YOUR Life,.....Believe what YOU will, and stop Proselytizing...because that is EXACTLY what you are doing.....you're an Atheistic Jehova's Witness Pal...trying to harass people into believing what you do.

This is classic. You seem to be the author of post 17, which makes a point that you seem to think is very important. Maybe in some ways it is, but it has nothing to do with the discussion that was going on here. When you got called on that, you got angry and started calling names, and making insults and false accusations.

[Guest Guest]

And if that is too Subtle...i'll simplify...... .

You seem to be confusing subtle with stupid. No need to dumb it down, when it's already there.

[Guest Guest]

Can anyone really believe that all the billions of life forms came about from a single amoeba and all the abundant natural resources to sustain those life forms are there as a matter of happenstance ? I pity the atheists who are missing out on the love and joy of religious belief. Evidence of that lack of love and joy is the anger displayed over a cross from the WTC. Atheists should be prayed for and shown compassionate tolerance.

Once a life form exists, it multiplies, only it doesn't make exact copies of itself. Mutations occur, and over time those mutations create different life forms. Give life a few billion years, you get what we have today. Of course a simple organism is capable of producing all the life we know today. It wasn't an amoeba, though. We had this discussion here a few years back. Didn't you learn anything? And didn't you see Dr. Tyson explaining this on Cosmos on Sunday evening? Who are you, in your ignorance, to deny what science shows us to be true?

I'm not missing out on anything. I grew up in a traditional theistic home. It didn't work for me. There is more beauty and grandeur in reality than there is in an ancient myth, which there's no reason to believe is true.

I pity anyone who misses out on this, the Christians as well as the atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

[Guest Guest]

Laughing so hard it is almost painful....you guys are incredible, and living up to what i posted...because you ASSume, wrongly that because i Think you are a pack of flaming Douchebags, that I am in fact a Christian. Thanks for proving my point, and i Reiterate....it's douchebags like YOU GUYS that make the rest of us Atheists who really Dont give a damn what anyone else believes Cringe every time you open your Man Pleasers.

If you don't care what other people believe, then you don't understand how powerful belief is in shaping the world we all live in.

[Guest Guest]

Can anyone really believe that all the billions of life forms came about from a single amoeba and all the abundant natural resources to sustain those life forms are there as a matter of happenstance ?

(1) Can anyone really believe that an omnipotent being existed forever, completely independent of anything, just as a matter of happenstance? In other words:

Who created God? You'll never answer that question, because if you did, you would be forced to admit that by your own "logic," God cannot exist.

(2) Now, here's the difference between that and evolutionary theory. You probably wouldn't believe that a human being can form from a cell created by a sperm-fertilized egg if we didn't see pregnant women's abdomens expand during fetal gestation, and didn't know how the little feller got in there. Yet no one questions this, because we have overwhelming evidence of it. Human beings develop from a single fertilized egg, just like every other animal, while oak trees come from acorns, large green leafy mustard plants come from tiny seeds, etc. If you didn't see it happening all around you every day, you probably wouldn't believe that either. After all, the human embryo doesn't have arms or legs or a brain or a heart until later, after the cells differentiate.

When Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection, we did not have microscopes that are as sophisticated as we have now. But only ten years after Darwin published his Origin of Species, Miescher discovered DNA, the basic building block of all life. Almost a century later, in the 1960s, Watson and Crick discovered DNA's double helix structure, looking more deeply inside DNA than ever before. By then, evolutionary theory had advanced far beyond Darwin's basic conclusions, some of which were incorrect - just as every great scientist's basic conclusions were refined after further observation and study. However, when scientists mapped DNA in the nearly 50 years since identification of the double helix, they found that Darwin's basic prediction of evolution of species was perfectly and undeniably supported by the genetic record. In other words, what Darwin could see with his eyes became even clearer under the microscope. The theory made an accurate prediction, which is the single most important test of its reliability and accuracy.

Every living thing is made of DNA, which carries the instructions of life. When we trace the differences in organisms - all the way from the simplest single-celled organism to the most complex creatures on earth - we can see the lineage, and it is precisely what Darwin's early theory predicted. We can see the branches of life, both in gross functional terms and appearance, and even more clearly in the DNA. All life developing from the first cell (which by the way was not an amoeba) is exactly how it happened. There is no other reasonable explanation for the genetic information being what it is. Denying this is nothing more or less than a stubborn refusal to accept a scientifically proven fact.

[Guest Guest]

Laughing so hard it is almost painful....you guys are incredible, and living up to what i posted...because you ASSume, wrongly that because i Think you are a pack of flaming Douchebags, that I am in fact a Christian. Thanks for proving my point, and i Reiterate....it's douchebags like YOU GUYS that make the rest of us Atheists who really Dont give a damn what anyone else believes Cringe every time you open your Man Pleasers.

So obviously you're the same one-trick pony who thinks that everyone with an opinion is a douche-bag. If you don't give a damn, then what's with the name-calling and the capital letters? Kinda transparent, don't you think?

[Guest Guest]

Can anyone really believe that all the billions of life forms came about from a single amoeba and all the abundant natural resources to sustain those life forms are there as a matter of happenstance ?

Of course life started with a one-celled organism. It had to happen that way. A goldfish didn't suddenly appear in a pond, that wouldn't make any sense. And it wasn't an amoeba either, that doesn't fit with the genetic record. Amoeba are Eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus). Predating all the Eukaryotes are the Prokaryotes, which are single-celled organisms without a nucleus. We know that both from the form of the cell (the Prokaryotes are simpler organisms, which probably appeared first), and from the DNA, which we can trace through its evolution. Bit by bit, we can now trace the evolution of species from the first single-celled organism to all the complex life forms we have today, which have a single far-distant ancestor but are on separate branches of the evolutionary cladogram. If even one of those did not fit, evolution would be disproved but just the opposite has happened: as scientists have mapped the DNA of the various organisms, they have proved evolution beyond any doubt.

The conclusion of your statement reflects a complete misunderstanding of cause and effect. Life appeared and developed because the conditions were present to sustain it; the conditions didn't appear because someone wanted life to exist. Of all the planets in the universe - likely billions, maybe trillions of them, or more - this one has the conditions to generate and sustain life. You can bury your head in the sand and insist that it's improbable but anyone who understands the life sciences and statistics knows that is entire plausible.

Ask yourself in this question: If there was a god who created life, do you really think there would be so much suffering? Ask yourself especially, if you could make a world with living beings in it who can experience pain and pleasure, would you design a world so that many of the sentient creatures had to provide food for other sentient and non-sentient creatures; that they would spend their last moments being chased and then eaten alive by other beings? No one but a sociopathic and psychopathic maniac would design it that way, having a choice. Life looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it is the product of natural forces. Your story about a god making it this way makes no sense, and if you say that it's man's fault for having eaten a forbidden fruit, that only shows how unwilling you are to open your mind to what really happened.

[Guest Guest]

Of course life started with a one-celled organism. It had to happen that way. A goldfish didn't suddenly appear in a pond, that wouldn't make any sense. And it wasn't an amoeba either, that doesn't fit with the genetic record. Amoeba are Eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus). Predating all the Eukaryotes are the Prokaryotes, which are single-celled organisms without a nucleus. We know that both from the form of the cell (the Prokaryotes are simpler organisms, which probably appeared first), and from the DNA, which we can trace through its evolution. Bit by bit, we can now trace the evolution of species from the first single-celled organism to all the complex life forms we have today, which have a single far-distant ancestor but are on separate branches of the evolutionary cladogram. If even one of those did not fit, evolution would be disproved but just the opposite has happened: as scientists have mapped the DNA of the various organisms, they have proved evolution beyond any doubt.

The conclusion of your statement reflects a complete misunderstanding of cause and effect. Life appeared and developed because the conditions were present to sustain it; the conditions didn't appear because someone wanted life to exist. Of all the planets in the universe - likely billions, maybe trillions of them, or more - this one has the conditions to generate and sustain life. You can bury your head in the sand and insist that it's improbable but anyone who understands the life sciences and statistics knows that is entire plausible.

Ask yourself in this question: If there was a god who created life, do you really think there would be so much suffering? Ask yourself especially, if you could make a world with living beings in it who can experience pain and pleasure, would you design a world so that many of the sentient creatures had to provide food for other sentient and non-sentient creatures; that they would spend their last moments being chased and then eaten alive by other beings? No one but a sociopathic and psychopathic maniac would design it that way, having a choice. Life looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it is the product of natural forces. Your story about a god making it this way makes no sense, and if you say that it's man's fault for having eaten a forbidden fruit, that only shows how unwilling you are to open your mind to what really happened.

A real answer to 2dim's snot-nosed question. It's really not all that complicated, or surprising, when you think about it like this.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Of course life started with a one-celled organism. It had to happen that way. A goldfish didn't suddenly appear in a pond, that wouldn't make any sense. And it wasn't an amoeba either, that doesn't fit with the genetic record. Amoeba are Eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus). Predating all the Eukaryotes are the Prokaryotes, which are single-celled organisms without a nucleus. We know that both from the form of the cell (the Prokaryotes are simpler organisms, which probably appeared first), and from the DNA, which we can trace through its evolution. Bit by bit, we can now trace the evolution of species from the first single-celled organism to all the complex life forms we have today, which have a single far-distant ancestor but are on separate branches of the evolutionary cladogram. If even one of those did not fit, evolution would be disproved but just the opposite has happened: as scientists have mapped the DNA of the various organisms, they have proved evolution beyond any doubt.

The conclusion of your statement reflects a complete misunderstanding of cause and effect. Life appeared and developed because the conditions were present to sustain it; the conditions didn't appear because someone wanted life to exist. Of all the planets in the universe - likely billions, maybe trillions of them, or more - this one has the conditions to generate and sustain life. You can bury your head in the sand and insist that it's improbable but anyone who understands the life sciences and statistics knows that is entire plausible.

Ask yourself in this question: If there was a god who created life, do you really think there would be so much suffering? Ask yourself especially, if you could make a world with living beings in it who can experience pain and pleasure, would you design a world so that many of the sentient creatures had to provide food for other sentient and non-sentient creatures; that they would spend their last moments being chased and then eaten alive by other beings? No one but a sociopathic and psychopathic maniac would design it that way, having a choice. Life looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it is the product of natural forces. Your story about a god making it this way makes no sense, and if you say that it's man's fault for having eaten a forbidden fruit, that only shows how unwilling you are to open your mind to what really happened.

I know there is a God because loony democrats exist. It proves that God has a sense of humor.

[Guest Guest]

I know there is a God because loony democrats exist. It proves that God has a sense of humor.

You come here and post about serious things in the most childish way. Scientists all over the world, who have spent their lives studying and working in the field, accept evolution, all the way from the first cell to every life form that is or ever was. You were given a very good, if brief, explanation of the process. Your only reply is yet another juvenile remark, beneath the dignity of a sixth grader. Seriously, dude, what is wrong with you? Does there never come a time in your life when you reflect on what you believe and how you present yourself, and consider that you could be consummately wrong?

[Guest Guest]

I know there is a God because loony democrats exist. It proves that God has a sense of humor.

Do you understand why the Prokaryotes appeared before the Eukaryotes?

[Guest Guest]

Science is not a joke. With DNA, the science comes from what scientists see with their own eyes, day after day and year and year in laboratories all over the world. They can see the evolutionary path in the DNA. It is as clear as fresh tire tracks through new-fallen snow. Dimwits who think their half-baked opinions can compete with established science should be required to go back to school, because obviously they weren't listening the first time.

Scientific illiteracy is a threat to our country. We need a citizenry that understands science, whether or not everyone gets all the details.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You come here and post about serious things in the most childish way. Scientists all over the world, who have spent their lives studying and working in the field, accept evolution, all the way from the first cell to every life form that is or ever was. You were given a very good, if brief, explanation of the process. Your only reply is yet another juvenile remark, beneath the dignity of a sixth grader. Seriously, dude, what is wrong with you? Does there never come a time in your life when you reflect on what you believe and how you present yourself, and consider that you could be consummately wrong?

Consummately ? What is it with Loonies that think they're impressing someone with unnecessary words. BTW, I believe in "Intelligently Designed Evolution". And since the fossil record doesn't indicate I.D. or seredipity, "scientists all over the world" don't know any more than me.

[Guest Guest]

Once a life form exists, it multiplies, only it doesn't make exact copies of itself. Mutations occur, and over time those mutations create different life forms. Give life a few billion years, you get what we have today. Of course a simple organism is capable of producing all the life we know today. It wasn't an amoeba, though. We had this discussion here a few years back. Didn't you learn anything? And didn't you see Dr. Tyson explaining this on Cosmos on Sunday evening? Who are you, in your ignorance, to deny what science shows us to be true?

I'm not missing out on anything. I grew up in a traditional theistic home. It didn't work for me. There is more beauty and grandeur in reality than there is in an ancient myth, which there's no reason to believe is true.

I pity anyone who misses out on this, the Christians as well as the atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

Also known as the Argument from incredulity fallacy. It's amazing how its users won't abandon it when they realize how flawed it is.

[Guest Guest]

Consummately ? What is it with Loonies that think they're impressing someone with unnecessary words. BTW, I believe in "Intelligently Designed Evolution". And since the fossil record doesn't indicate I.D. or seredipity, "scientists all over the world" don't know any more than me.

Are you freaking kidding me?! You think you know as much as the best scientists? That's a coffee-snorter.

You don't pay any attention to the details. What scientists know and you don't is how robust and far-reaching the evolutionary principle is. I'm very sorry if that's another concept you'll have to look up if you want to understand it, but your ignorance does not compare to the vast body of scientific knowledge around the world.

[Guest Guest]

And since the fossil record doesn't indicate I.D. or seredipity, "scientists all over the world" don't know any more than me.

I'm not saying this to be mean, but that statement really explains a lot. Without exaggeration, not only are you willfully ignorant and not very bright; you think you're the smartest person in the room if not on the planet. Scientists know worlds more than you do. For one thing, they understand the details of science, and how those details fit into the picture of moving toward a state where we have more knowledge than we do today. The entire history of science teaches us that the methods are everything, yet not once in the years I've been reading your rants here have you ever displayed the slightest awareness of how important scientific methods are. The fact that you don't have the awareness or the humility to understand that explains why you act like such a pathetic dweeb here. Again, I'm not saying it to be mean. You really have displayed yourself to be a consummate jackass. It's a fancy word for "complete" with just enough nuance that people who appreciate language will also appreciate the subtle difference. You didn't get that either.

Do yourself a favor, dude. Go back to school. You don't know a hundredth of what you think you know.

Oh, and it's "don't know any more than I."

[Guest Guest]

What a pity it is that Einstein died nearly sixty years ago. Imagine what he might have accomplished if he had known 2Stupid4Words.

[Guest Guest]

I'm not saying this to be mean, but that statement really explains a lot. Without exaggeration, not only are you willfully ignorant and not very bright; you think you're the smartest person in the room if not on the planet. Scientists know worlds more than you do. For one thing, they understand the details of science, and how those details fit into the picture of moving toward a state where we have more knowledge than we do today. The entire history of science teaches us that the methods are everything, yet not once in the years I've been reading your rants here have you ever displayed the slightest awareness of how important scientific methods are. The fact that you don't have the awareness or the humility to understand that explains why you act like such a pathetic dweeb here. Again, I'm not saying it to be mean. You really have displayed yourself to be a consummate jackass. It's a fancy word for "complete" with just enough nuance that people who appreciate language will also appreciate the subtle difference. You didn't get that either.

Do yourself a favor, dude. Go back to school. You don't know a hundredth of what you think you know.

For example, why did Prokaryotes appear before Eukaryotes, and why is that important? If 2Stupid4Words understood as much as scientists do, he would answer that question - because then he could answer it. Then, if the answer supported him, 2Stupid4Words could show us all how smart he is and how stupid we are to disagree with him. He doesn't do it because he can't do it.

Scientists look at things differently, as compared to people who do not understand science. It's a different worldview. They see and understand the tiny pieces of the huge jigsaw puzzle that makes up our reality. People who do not understand that worldview have no idea how much they or anyone else knows. They're like a person who has lived in a cave all his life, and never been outside it, or seen anything from the outside world. There's no way for him to know what life is like outside the cave.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I'm not saying this to be mean, but that statement really explains a lot. Without exaggeration, not only are you willfully ignorant and not very bright; you think you're the smartest person in the room if not on the planet. Scientists know worlds more than you do. For one thing, they understand the details of science, and how those details fit into the picture of moving toward a state where we have more knowledge than we do today. The entire history of science teaches us that the methods are everything, yet not once in the years I've been reading your rants here have you ever displayed the slightest awareness of how important scientific methods are. The fact that you don't have the awareness or the humility to understand that explains why you act like such a pathetic dweeb here. Again, I'm not saying it to be mean. You really have displayed yourself to be a consummate jackass. It's a fancy word for "complete" with just enough nuance that people who appreciate language will also appreciate the subtle difference. You didn't get that either.

Do yourself a favor, dude. Go back to school. You don't know a hundredth of what you think you know.

Oh, and it's "don't know any more than I."

I'll repeat myself. The fossil record can't and doesn't indicate I.D. or serendipity. And since science can't prove or disprove either I.D. or seredipity, we can only follow our faith and beliefs. Atheists will of course choose to believe in seredipity, happenstance and Mother Nature. I believe in I.D. I'm waiting for science to prove me wrong.