I can't remember her name but some dumb bitch on Bill Maher's latest episode of Real Time claimed at the end of the discussion that "Atheism is a religion" and because of time constraints he couldn't properly defend anything and had to go to new rules, grrr she knew to bring that up at the end of the discussion. I don't know how Bill can just take that stupid comment on the chin and continue with the show as planned, that would drive me crazy having a topic unanswered like that, especially a really bad strawman for Atheism.

It was Kennedy(one name like Madonna), and you could tell Bill didn't want to let it go but had to.

(February 3, 2012 at 12:58 pm)Stimbo Wrote: For someone who is "Convinced of Christ by science", Deceived sure spends a lot of time trying to convince us that science is false. Only the inconvenient bits of course.

The majority of my posts are about why evolution isn't science. I support real science one hundred percent. But if evolution has not been observed, tested or demonstrated it has not followed the scientific method. I don't know how you dare argue otherwise. I'm not saying the theory is beyond-a-doubt false-- just that we should treat it like the belief system it is. Evolution has no direct evidence. Scientists attribute this to the majority of the action being in the past. But if you assume the earth is billions+ years old, you've already broken objectivity. Evolution does not function without dating. If dating goes down, everything else is able to be explained away by a creator. My problem is that this vitalest of vital evidences is based on the assumption of the earth being old, that this means circular theory, and that evolutionists feel the need to deny it is circular theory. Such deception should not be overlooked. I trust science, but I distrust scientists when they propagandize for evolution. The evidence should be left to speak for itself. If all you can do is infer you might as well be a skeptic until more information turns up. Jumping to conclusions to bolster one's atheistic belief is not science at all--it's sacrilege to the field.

Yet you're totally cool with god, and he fails to exist when the scientific method is applied.

reallydeceived would answer:

Belief in God isn't a question of science. God is what must exist if evolution isn't true. I have already shown exhaustively that evilution is not good science. Ergo, God did it. God couldn't do it unless God exists. Check and mate.

By a similar line of reasoning it can be shown that God's creator exists, and his Creator's creator exists, ad infinitum. So not only does God exist but the woods are literally full of them. You atheists had best prepare to meet your maker, and His maker .. and his maker .. and

(February 4, 2012 at 3:11 am)Undeceived Wrote: The majority of my posts are about why evolution isn't science. I support real science one hundred percent. But if evolution has not been observed, tested or demonstrated it has not followed the scientific method. I don't know how you dare argue otherwise. I'm not saying the theory is beyond-a-doubt false-- just that we should treat it like the belief system it is. Evolution has no direct evidence. Scientists attribute this to the majority of the action being in the past. But if you assume the earth is billions+ years old, you've already broken objectivity. Evolution does not function without dating. If dating goes down, everything else is able to be explained away by a creator. My problem is that this vitalest of vital evidences is based on the assumption of the earth being old, that this means circular theory, and that evolutionists feel the need to deny it is circular theory. Such deception should not be overlooked. I trust science, but I distrust scientists when they propagandize for evolution. The evidence should be left to speak for itself. If all you can do is infer you might as well be a skeptic until more information turns up. Jumping to conclusions to bolster one's atheistic belief is not science at all--it's sacrilege to the field.

Evolution has massive amounts of evidence going for it.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0/lines_01

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0/lines_02

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0/lines_04

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0/lines_09

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0/lines_12

And direct observation does take place.

Quote:Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent.

Evolution is a fact.

But even if it wasnt I still would not believe in your silly god thing.

Even before there was a theory of evolution there were atheists.

They are even mentioned in the bible.

Psalm 14.1 "the fool has said in his heart there is no god"

Not entirely flattering, but goes to show that some people did not believe EVEN THEN.

(February 4, 2012 at 10:11 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Psalm 14.1 "the fool has said in his heart there is no god"

Not entirely flattering, but goes to show that some people did not believe EVEN THEN.

When the truly foolish call you a fool that can really be quite flattering.

Atheism is the lack of religion. How hard is that to understand?

Seems quite difficult for theists Sophi

(February 4, 2012 at 2:50 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Seems quite difficult for theists Sophi

They just don't want to accept it!

"omg how can people not believe in god!" they say, and then, before their mind can exploded with the incomprehensible reality that people don't believe in God, they go on an evangelism rampage.