Search results

The fact that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that to deny it is to deny reality does not mean evolution itself is a presupposition. It isn't taken on faith, it's taken on evidence. Oh, this is nonsense. On what grounds do you argue that logic should be impossible? The uniformity...

My feeling on the matter is that tradition is a bad reason to do or believe anything. If you enjoy it, or find it convincing, great. If you're doing it because your Grand-dad and your Dad did it -- why? A lot of our traditions have turned out to be pretty bad ideas.

It seems to me that you're missing a fundamental point. I'm an atheist because I don't find any arguments for religion convincing. I cannot force myself to believe something that does not convince me. I could claim to be religious, but I'd simply be lying.

Because you praise the familiar over the original?

...on what basis to you conclude the bible to be accurate?

On what basis do you conclude it to be wrong?

WOW. You're the greatest troll in the history of the internets.

Holy ****, AV, I didn't realize you were famous. I just found your post on 'fundies say the darndest things . com' There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me...

This sentence is missing a comma.

There's no such thing as an atheist 'doctrine'. The fact that we don't believe in God as we exit the birth canal is not, so far as I can tell, an attack on religion. I don't think newborns believe in evolution as the exit the birth canal either, and, similarly, do not consider such a suggestion...

No straw man for you.

I'm not sure about sublimity, but I'll certainly concede that not all of the contents of the bible are silly or grotesque. As I said, I'm not one for ascribing thoughts or intentions to inanimate objects, but I can certainly deem a message to be a good one or a bad one (and in this case, a...

The first two have nothing to do with our nation, and the third is traditionally "E Pluribus Unum," which has nothing to do with religion. Moreover, while America still has more protestants than adherents of any other type, the percentage of the nation which is protestant is just now slipping...

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D I see the bible isn't the only thing around here that's absurd.

First, I didn't call it an evil book, I called it absurd and abhorrent. Which is to say that the contents of it are both silly and grotesque. Second, I think it's entirely fair to say that some of the things which are expressly condoned in the old testament would be identified as immoral by...

So we're agreed that the bible is generally absurd and abhorrent? Pass on Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't mind seeing the others. But I covered a lot more than 4 religions in one world religions class in college; I don't see why a high school history class would have to spend more than a month or two...

The reason physicists study string theory is because no one has had a better idea for a ToE yet. As far as I'm aware, no advances of any kind have been made in String theory in the past 25 years, particularly in terms of attempting to actually use it to reference the natural world or in at least...

On the contrary, I can think of no more efficient way to create atheists than to teach the bible. I would, however, probably want equal time for Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. I think a good world religions class is remarkably enlightening.

I would point out only this: 1. String theory and multi-verse theories have nothing to do with each other. 2. Both are purely hypothetical. We don't have supporting evidence for either of them, as far as I'm aware. Though I don't think we expect to have evidence for multi-verse theories, we...