'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, just as you ignored my question.

I don't know what question you are talking about, as I said in the post you were replying to.

Fair enough?

No.

Don't feel too bad, I'm ignoring "what?" guy too. Guess I'm just not in the mood for it all today

Then perhaps refrain from posting, until you are in the mood.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's par.

Sorry.

I'm not here to read big, long Chatty Cathy posts.

For one, it makes me think you've got something to hide.

If you can't make your point or answer a simple question in a sentence or two, then I get suspicious.

 

[Oafman]

Sorry.

I'm not here to read big, long Chatty Cathy posts.

For one, it makes me think you've got something to hide.

If you can't make your point or answer a simple question in a sentence or two, then I get suspicious.

If things are complicated, you disregard them?

This news is going to surprise nobody.

 

[AV1611VET]

If things are complicated, you disregard them?

This news is going to surprise nobody.

I'm not interested in five screens worth of why someone doesn't accept evidence for God.

It's enough just to admit you don't accept it.

Holidays, churches, martyrs mean nothing to atheists and scientists.

 

[Oafman]

I'm not interested in five screens worth of why someone doesn't accept evidence for God.

It's enough just to admit you don't accept it.

Holidays, churches, martyrs mean nothing to atheists and scientists.

As everyone no doubt keeps telling you, those things are evidence for the existence of religions, not for the truth of any particular religion. Nobody is claiming religions don't exist.

 

[AirPo]

QEDing the OP?

No, just pointing out the obvious.

 

[HitchSlap]

Logical fallacies?

Gotta say, some of you are entirely to dependent on that term, as well as a few others. Sorry but is just doesn't cover everything like you think it does.

For instance...it doesn't answer the question.

So what? What if the question is never answered?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Not a single one of them requires the laws of nature to be suspended.

And that has led you to what conclusion? See, with no explanation to where the laws of nature originated, you have very little, so might be a good idea to realize you can't use the laws of nature to explain where the laws of nature came from because at one time there may have been no laws of nature.

Which of the hypotheses for the origin of life requires 'nothing to come out of nowhere'?

Which one doesn't?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then perhaps refrain from posting, until you are in the mood.

For all intents and purposes, as far as you are concerned, I have. But you have to understand you aren't the only poster here.

 

[HitchSlap]

OK, thanks, Nith.

It's not enough for you, and I get that, but that doesn't mean it's a "logical fallacy, and I know you didn't call it that but fact it its at the very least a logical possibility, and so much so, many feel it's logical enough they are happy with calling it fact.

Believe what you believe but constantly throwing the F word at it doesn't make it that. That's not necessarily directed at you, I just figure it would be wasted if I directed it at the source....too far gone.

Nothing new? No it isn't, but it is a reminder with all the goings on here and constantly trying to put creation down, others don't have a better explanation. And maybe I'm bias but I really believe if I had never been exposed to either side of this from the time I was born and was presented the two possibilities then had to choose one or the other, I'd have to choose intelligent design, just makes a lot more logical sense. And again, I know you disagree but that doesn't mean you are right, and until you guys can do better, I guess I just don't see the point of coming here messing with our God, or our beliefs?

Because beliefs that can't be objectively supported, and based on arguments from incredulity should be discarded.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So what? What if the question is never answered?

Then I have no answer to the question.

 

[AV1611VET]

As everyone no doubt keeps telling you, those things are evidence for the existence of religions,

Not the ones I'm talking about.

JOY TO THE WORLD is not evidence for Buddha.

CHRISTMAS and EASTER are not holidays to celebrate Allah.

April 1st is not ... (skip that one).

JESUS IS MY PILOT does not testify of Hinduism.

The SALVATION ARMY was not started to venerate Charles Darwin.

Et cetera.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, just pointing out the obvious.

I'd say you're pointing in the wrong direction.

 

[Oafman]

And that has led you to what conclusion? See, with no explanation to where the laws of nature originated, you have very little, so might be a good idea to realize you can't use the laws of nature to explain where the laws of nature came from because at one time there may have been no laws of nature.

We're not trying to explain where the laws of nature came from!

We're trying to explain where life came from. If we can do that without having to drastically change the laws of nature, then our explanation is much more likely to be accurate than one which does require such changes.

Which one doesn't?

All of them. Not a single serious hypothesis for the origin of life requires 'nothing to come out of nowhere'. Only one 'explanation' for the origin of life requires complex acids and sugars to magically appear out of nowhere, and that's your explanation.

 

[AirPo]

I'd say you're pointing in the wrong direction.

That's obvious as well.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not the ones I'm talking about.

JOY TO THE WORLD is not evidence for Buddha.

CHRISTMAS and EASTER are not holidays to celebrate Allah.

April 1st is not ... (skip that one).

JESUS IS MY PILOT does not testify of Hinduism.

The SALVATION ARMY was not started to venerate Charles Darwin.

Et cetera.

I enjoy a lot of your posts, some even have a weird logic, and you are certainly consistant, but I'd give this one up if I were you, it makes no sense.

(BTW: 3,478,111 posts - I'm impressed and saddened at the same time.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Holidays, churches, martyrs mean nothing to atheists and scientists.

Ow, I dunno about that....
- Holidays: an excuse to sleep in and/or party
- Churches: art in architectural form; cultural heritage

I consider both quite meaningfull...

Even some martyr stories, I can appreciate in terms of the romantic / story telling value.

AV, the world isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And that has led you to what conclusion? See, with no explanation to where the laws of nature originated, you have very little, so might be a good idea to realize you can't use the laws of nature to explain where the laws of nature came from because at one time there may have been no laws of nature.

I thought you were talking about the origins of life?
Not the origins of the laws of nature....

Which one doesn't?

All of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ow, I dunno about that....
- Holidays: an excuse to sleep in and/or party
- Churches: art in architectural form; cultural heritage

I consider both quite meaningfull...

Even some martyr stories, I can appreciate in terms of the romantic / story telling value.

AV, the world isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.

You guys don't realize it, but you're QEDing the OP.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For all intents and purposes, as far as you are concerned, I have. But you have to understand you aren't the only poster here.

I'll take that to mean: "I don't wish to continue talking to you, because it hurts my case..."