I am an atheist – the burden of proof lies on religion

I am an atheist - the burden of proof lies on religion

  • Leave A Comment

    Leave a comment ?

    106 Responses to I am an atheist – the burden of proof lies on religion

    1. I tried that argument, and then they came back with a witty “Okay, I’ll follow your scientific methods but, you gotta follow my biblical quote method afterwards”

      Which was a premise to draw you in to the “miracle” of God eg that circular argument that’s actually a logical fallacy:
      The bible is true => because god’s word is infallible => Therefore the bible is true => Because god’s word is infallible

      I say, just take a stance, say thank you but no thanks, and sidestep the whole argument, should they insist (jehovah’s witness’ foot in my door!!) then offer the help of police to evict them from your property.

      Or if it was street side, make the bastards chase you.


      • Some time ago a witless tried the foot in the door thing with me… I’m willing to bet my bootprint is still in the middle of his chest.

        He got three warnings, that’s more than most would give them… I told him next time one of them tried something like that I was going to keep the foot.

        They still didn’t quite take the hint so few days later I hung a goat skull on my front door that you couldn’t see till you came up the steps, used to be fun watching them make it to the steps and then scurry away in horror.


    2. “I hope I never get so old I get religious.” – Ingrid Bergman


    3. i think saying the “burden of proof lies on religion” is not terribly accurate. a huge cornerstone of the christian belief (and perhaps others) is faith. and once you scientifically prove something, you are no longer operating with faith.

      im not sure what the best statement would be, but you cant really prove something that is, inherently, unprovable or else it changes.


    4. I’m Agnostic because I believe it is impossible to know anything definitively Everything except my previous statement…maybe.


    5. Theological noncognitivists ftw.


    6. I think they forgot to add that they are not Atheists because it makes them feel superior to those annoying, dumb trusting little theists who have no respect for the scientific process.

      Or maybe they didn’t. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?


    7. Just follow Jesus’s teachings and you’ll see that God exists. ez game, imo. 😉


      • There’s more historical evidence that Santa Clause exists than for Jesus ever having existed


        • Ah, clever
          But proving Santa existing doesn’t disprove Jesus not-existing.


        • Really? there is plenty non-religious evidence for Christ.


          • Not really. There’s a mention by Josephus, but he was born after Jesus supposedly died, so it’s just hearsay.


          • Name one contemporary, non gospel/bible source that mentions Jesus.



            • Whether Jesus really existed or not is irrelevant. Sure, he seemed like a nice guy, and more reasonable than the other men of his time, but religious delusions are common among the insane.
              Just ’cause he says he’s the son of god don’t make it so.


            • Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?

              Even those who are not persuaded by Christianity often have great respect for Jesus. Among those who reject the idea that Jesus was God incarnate, there are many who are nevertheless followers of him to some degree. “Jesus was a great moral teacher”, some say, “but he wasn’t God”. According to this view, Jesus is to be followed as a great human being, but not as a divine one.
              This idea that Jesus was merely a great human being, i.e. a great human being but nothing more, is, as C.S. Lewis argued in Part 2 of Mere Christianity, indefensible.
              Jesus made the most astonishing claims, not only about God, society and ethics, but also about himself. He claimed to have the authority to forgive sins, to be the representative of all humanity come to die in order to reconcile man to God, and to be the only way for people to attain salvation.
              Faced with the fact that Jesus made these claims about himself, there are three things that we might say about him: Either Jesus’ claims were false and he knew it, or his claims were false and he didn’t know it, or his claims were true. None of these suggests that Jesus was a great, but merely human, teacher. Anyone who has that view needs to think again.

              The first thing that we might say about Jesus is that his claims were false and he knew it, in which case he was a liar. If Jesus did not believe that his claims about himself were true, then when he made those claims he was lying.
              Jesus’ claims about himself were so central to his teachings, though, that if they were lies then he can hardly be deemed a great teacher. If Jesus set out to systematically deceive people about who he was and how their sins were to be dealt with, then he was among the worst teachers that have ever walked the earth.
              The second thing that we might say about Jesus is that his claims were false and he didn’t know it, in which case he was a lunatic. If Jesus believed that his claims about himself were true, and they weren’t, then he was a delusional egomaniac. If an ordinary person believes himself to be God incarnate, then that person is, put quite simply, insane.
              Again, if this were the case, if Jesus taught that this is who he was and was mistaken, then he was as bad a teacher as there has ever been.
              The third thing that we might say about Jesus is that his claims were true, in which case he was, and is, Lord. If Jesus believed that his claims about himself were true and they were, then Jesus was not only a great human being, but was also God on Earth.
              If we take Jesus seriously, then we must take Jesus’ claims about himself seriously. We cannot say that Jesus was a great teacher whom we admire and look up to, but that the most fundamental element of his teachings was a monumental error. Jesus was not a great, but merely human, teacher; he was either much less than this, or much more.

              Those who respond to this argument by writing Jesus off as either a liar or a lunatic are, for all that has been said so far, just as reasonable as those who respond by accepting Jesus as Lord. This argument is an attack only on the view that Jesus was a great teacher but not God; there is nothing in it that counts against the view that Jesus was a terrible teacher. In order to show that it is better to view Jesus as Lord than as either a liar or a lunatic, it would have to be demonstrated that there is some reason to take Jesus’ claims seriously.
              Do we have any reason, though, to take Jesus’ claims seriously? Many have argued that we do, that we have the strongest possible evidence that Jesus knew what he was talking about when it came to the supernatural. There is, it is argued, substantial historical evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead, endorsing his claims to religious authority.
              The Resurrection, it is said, was a divine endorsement of Jesus’ teachings, God’s confirmation that Jesus’ teachings were true. If this is correct, then there can be no doubt as to which of the three positions concerning Jesus outlined above is the correct one. If there is significant evidence for the resurrection, then we have to take Jesus seriously.


            • Could you at least bother putting things in your own words, you piece of fuck?

              Jesus was a mediocre teacher of ethics and morals at best. He did not suggest changing the laws of slavery, or of elevating the position of women to more than chattel (though he supposedly was nicer to them than others). In fact, with all the disgusting laws springing forth from the bronze age Hebrews, he said that none should change. He said that you should turn the other cheek, lie down and take oppression, because he’d be back soon and bring his daddy.

              Now, where is your contemporary non biblical source, or do you admit that there are none? How about a horde of zombies rising from the grave to wander the streets of Israel? That should have made the news, right, but the only record is in Mathey 27:51-53.

              Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or most likely, Legend.


            • The following are early extra-biblical references to Jesus and/or Christians by non-Christian writers (in some cases, Christian writers are quoting non-Christian writers’ references to Jesus). Quotes are copied from the accompanying links, unless otherwise noted. Within the text of the article, authors’ names are links to encyclopedia articles about them.

              Julius Africanus
              Pliny the Younger

              Josephus (A.D. 37 – c. A.D. 100)

              Josephus’ Antiquities (early 2nd century A.D.) refers to Jesus in two separate passages. The common translation of the first passage, Book 18, Ch. 3, part 3, is disputed and is most likely from an altered source. F. F. Bruce has provided a more likely translation:

              Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today.

              The translations of this passage are discussed in Josephus: Testimonium Flavianum from Jesus.com.au.

              The second passage is from Book 20, Ch. 9, part 1:

              …so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…

              (Note: The Antiquities can be found at several different sites, including the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Perseus Digital Library and Crosswalk.com)

              Tacitus (c. A.D. 55 – c. A.D. 117)
              Annals, book XV:

              Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

              Suetonius (c. A.D. 69 – c. A.D. 140)

              Lives of the Caesars – Claudius, sec. 25:

              He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.

              Lives of the Caesars – Nero, sec. 16

              Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

              Julius Africanus (c. 160 – c. 240)

              Chronography, XVIII refers to writings by Thallus and Phlegon concerning the darkness during the Crucifixion:

              On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun…Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth – manifestly that one of which we speak.

              Origen (c. 185 – c. 254)

              In Against Celsus, Origen quotes Celsus, a second-century skeptic, on Jesus. Celsus’ view of Christians and Christianity, an article from Bluffton College, contains relevant excerpts.

              Pliny the Younger (c. 62 – c. 113)

              Letters, 10.96-97 records Pliny’s dealings with Christians


            • And once again I am drawn into an argument with someone who has no interest in challenging preconceived notions, not matter that there is evidence to the contrary. Even if the evidence proves insufficient to change you ideals there is no reason to resort to name calling. I merely shows the low quality of your character, and removes any weight from your position.

              I am more than happy to discussion and Challenge my knowledge and beliefs. But there is no point in arguing with someone whose response is comprised of insults and lacking in facts and proof.


            • Your evidence is bad, dishonest and fraudulent.

              Provide good evidence, and then we can communicate as equals. Until then, you are naught but a repeater of lies. Isn’t there a commandment about that?


            • So Christians existed, but NONE of these are contemporary (do you even know what that word means?) evidence of Jesus. In fact, the Jocephus passage is a fraud, as early copies of that text do not include the text that you quote. Investigate these things before you try to push them. You only hurt your religion when you just repeat easily disproved lies.

              You lose.

              And I’ll quit insulting you with words when you quit insulting me with your ignorance.


            • And fuck you once more for handing more copypasta instead of linking.


              You do nothing but repeat and plagiarize. You have no ethics.


            • w/e, just been ½assing this

              How about a paper I wrote in College (ITT Tech) that I got a 95% on?



            • Really, half? I’d say at most its a quarter assed attempt.

              If it were a draft, I’d give you a C and send you back to do more research on archeology. And careful copying does not mean that something really happened. But I expect more of my students than ITT does when it comes to accuracy. What kind of class was it? English comp?

              You still have not managed to find a legitimate contemporary non biblical source.


            • ID, this is what’s called throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because he was a loon, does not mean he didn’t have some good things to say. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
              Hang on, can I fit any more well-worn sayings in here? Nope. I think I’m done.


    8. Any creationist worth his weight in bible pages would point you to the marvels of creation as, at the very least, proof of a vastly intelligent designer and constructor. You can set your watch to the clockwork of the human body. The sheer amount of perfectly ordered processes working in harmony that allow for you to waste it and jack off to /b/ is nothing less than amazing. You choose to turn a blind eye to that, label it chance, then ask for more proof. That’s your business.

      You don’t apply “burden of proof” to your own beliefs. Prove atoms that shouldn’t have gotten together got together, “BANG”ed, then life happened. Prove monocelluar organisms, turned into fish, which turned into apes. Prove life can survive in their harsh environments while evolving things they absolutely need to….wait for it…survive.

      All i’m saying is if you don’t want to get off your high horse at least follow your own rules. Real evolutionists aren’t making black screen and white text wallpapers, they’re scurrying to get concrete proof for what they believe. Do the same.

      tl;dr NO U


      • Staples you best be trollin’.


      • every time I have an unexpected bowel movement, I say fuck you to whatever “clockwork of the human body” you’re referring to. fuck that shit with a stick


      • Yeah, the human body is incredibly poorly put together. The world around us is not evidence of a careful godling, but one who is extremely careless and unconcerned with needless suffering.

        And should you like to find evidence of the things you are asking for, open a science text book, read through the evidence, best explanations, etc etc before you start acting as though scientists don’t have any evidence based ideas regarding abiogenesis or the process of evolution.

        tl;dr fucking magnets


        • From what I’ve observed, it seems like most of the physiological weaknesses we see in most living things are simply necessary compromises in order to allow organisms to survive in conditions they are most likely to encounter.

          But you have voiced an interesting take on the construction of the human body. Can you elaborate more on why you believe the human body is so poorly constructed? And do you find this true of all life as well?


          • Yeah. All life is faulty. Evolution produces good enough to survive and reproduce, not perfection. The human eye has blind spots and is wired backwards, with the light detection cells facing away from the lens, and nerve fibers and blood vessels within the eyeball. This produces blind spots which require special decoding of information in order to produce a patchless field of vision. This system also lends itself to detached retinas as well. Our upright gait leads to back problems, roids, herias, etc. Our genome is also filled with errors. We have a non functional gene for an enzyme that produces vitamin C in most other mammals. Because humans generally get enough vitC from our diet, that gene eventually became mutated and was lost.

            The larger a canid is, the more likely that when it runs with a full stomach, the intestines can wrap around the stomach causing a fatal blockage.

            The digestive tract of squid goes through their brain, meaning that a large bite will cause brain damage. A large bite of fish would cause traumatic stretching of the brain. Their eyes are wired correctly, but don’t see color very well. On the other hand, they can detect differences in the polarity of light, which is pretty damn incredible.


      • Anyone who uses ‘proof’ in the context of scientific theory is a fucking mong. You are conflating the 17th century sense of the word with the modern, formal proof.

        You cannot prove scientific theories, and this is no criticism. There are only greater or lesser degrees of confirmation. And the neo-Darwinian synthesis is fantastically well confirmed.

        Ignore anyone who says evolution is not ‘proven’ or ‘provable’; they haven’t a clue.


    9. *fast breathing from running* shi..aah..shit…..dammmfuck… shit storm.


    10. You made water come out my nose

      And it turned into wine! 😮

      Oh, wait, nosebleed nevermind….


    11. If you are a product of chance, your brain is also a product of chance. Therefore, the thought patterns that determine your logic are also prodcts of chance. If your logic is the result of a change process, you can’t be sure that it evolved properly. You can’t be sure you’re even asking the right question because you can’t trust your own logic.
      -Ken A. Ham B.Ap.Sc., Dip.ed

      Of course your missing the whole thing of the Scientific method… You can’t even prove where Obama was born scientifically. You have to use historic documents to prove Hawaii vs Kenya.

      Remember, Evolution is a religion, not a science. Macro-Evolution is not provable via the scientific method any more than God is. Check out “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell if your actually looking for truth, not just so self-absorbed that your not willing to challenge what you think you know.


      • Evolution != chance. It’s amazing how many people don’t get that.


        • Yes. Random mutation. Evolution is _driven_ by chance, but the bad mutations die and the good ones get passed on. That’s how we get order from chaos. Fans of intelligent design can’t seem to grasp this, even though it is beautiful in its simplicity.
          Fucking idiots.


      • “LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. “You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”

        “Yes, sir.”

        “So you believe in God?”


        “Is God good?”

        “Sure! God’s good.”

        “Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”


        “Are you good or evil?”

        “The Bible says I’m evil.”

        The professor grins knowingly. “Ahh! THE BIBLE!”

        He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? “Would you try?”

        “Yes sir, I would.”

        “So you’re good…!”

        “I wouldn’t say that.”

        “Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could… in fact most of us would if we could…God doesn’t.”

        [No answer.]

        “He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”

        [No answer]

        The elderly man is sympathetic. “No, you can’t, can you?” He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. “Let’s start again, young fella.”

        “Is God good?”

        “Er… Yes.”

        “Is Satan good?”


        “Where does Satan come from?” The student falters.

        “From… God…”

        “That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he?” The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. “I think we’re going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen.” He turns back to the Christian.

        “Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”

        “Yes, sir.”

        “Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? Did God make everything?”


        “Who created evil?

        [No answer]

        “Is their sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things – do they exist in this world? ”

        The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

        “Who created them? ”

        [No answer]

        The professor suddenly shouts at his student. “WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!” The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian’s face. In a still small voice: “God created all evil, didn’t He, son?”

        [No answer]

        The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.

        Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues, “how is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?” The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. “All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn’t it, young man?”

        [No answer]

        “Don’t you see it all over the place? Huh?”


        “Don’t you?” The professor leans into the student’s face again and whispers, “Is God good?”

        [No answer]

        “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”

        The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor. I do.”

        The old man shakes his head sadly. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you seen Jesus?”

        “No, sir. I’ve never seen Him.”

        “Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”

        “No, sir. I have not.”

        “Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus…in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?”

        [No answer]

        “Answer me, please.”

        “No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”

        “You’re AFRAID… you haven’t?”

        “No, sir.”

        “Yet you still believe in him?”


        “That takes FAITH!” The professor smiles sagely at the underling. “According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?”

        [The student doesn’t answer]

        “Sit down, please.”

        The Christian sits…Defeated.

        Another Christian raises his hand. “Professor, may I address the class?”

        The professor turns and smiles. “Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering.”

        The Christian looks around the room. “Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I’ve got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?”

        “Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”

        “Is there such a thing as cold?”

        “Yes, son, there’s cold too.”

        “No, sir, there isn’t.”

        The professor’s grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

        The second Christian continues. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 – You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”

        Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

        “Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?”

        “That’s a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn’t darkness? What are you getting at…?”

        “So you say there is such a thing as darkness?”


        “You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you…give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?”

        Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. “Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?”

        “Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error….”

        The professor goes toxic. “Flawed…? How dare you…!””

        “Sir, may I explain what I mean?”

        The class is all ears.

        “Explain… oh, explain…” The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

        “You are working on the premise of duality,” the Christian explains. “That for example there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death, as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it.”

        The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. “Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?”

        “Of course there is, now look…”

        “Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality.

        Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?” The Christian pauses. “Isn’t evil the absence of good?”

        The professor’s face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

        The Christian continues. “If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil.”

        The professor bridles. “As a philosophical scientist, I don’t view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable.”

        “I would have thought that the absence of God’s moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going,” the Christian replies. “Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”

        “If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”

        “Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”

        The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

        “Professor. Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?”

        “I’ll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?” the professor hisses.

        “So you don’t accept God’s moral code to do what is righteous?”

        “I believe in what is – that’s science!”

        “Ahh! SCIENCE!” the student’s face splits into a grin. “Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed…”

        “SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?” the professor splutters.

        The class is in uproar.

        The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. “To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?” The professor wisely keeps silent.

        The Christian looks around the room. “Is they’re anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?” The class breaks out in laughter.

        The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. “Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain… felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain?” No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. “It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor’s brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain.”

        The class is in chaos.

        The Christian sits… Because that is what a chair is for.


        • That a cute story, but it never actually happened. Just like most things that Christians believe.


        • That was a very long way to say “I’m right you’re wrong.” With a reply of “No you.”


        • You guys actually read that? ballsy.


          • I’ve read the same story before on snopes.com


            • Cute story about the lack of a brain, i mean, downplaying medical findings to mere semantic wordplay?

              typical christian


            • it merely shows the limitations of proving something via the “scientific method”

              sometimes you just have to take things on “faith” no matter your “belief system”.


            • face it… they have traced all humanity to a common ancestor…. aka, Eve.


              so think… Eve… then the Flood, it does talk about a “Adam” that lived after Eve…. maybe Noah?

              have fun.



              You fucking illiterate, intentionally stupid, pridefully ignorant moron. Do you work at being so blindingly dumb?

              “have fun”

              You aren’t clever, you sad little fuckwit. Why do you accept this bit of scientific evidence, but not the evidence connecting humans to other hominids, the anthropoid apes, and all the way back to sinapsids, then amphibians and fish? We could easily keep going. Why is a mitochondrial Eve acceptable as a product of science, but evolution is not?

              Because you are a hopeless idiot.

              You actually quoted that fucktard and professional liar and scam artist Ken Ham.

              Evolution is not a religion. No matter how much you believe this, it isn’t true.

              Evolution is a scientific theory, and therefore is the best explanation of the available evidence, explaining a broad range of phenomenons. It has yet to be disproved, although it has been revised as better evidence is procured.

              It does not require any level of faith. We have the fossils and the comparative genomics and the pseudogenes and the endogenous retroviruses. We have the evidence. That means no faith is needed.

              Your little copypasta storytime is a piece of shit. It is making the assumption that the scientific process allows for nothing but first person observation of an event. That is painfully incorrect. If it were true, then nobody could ever be prosecuted for a crime without eyewitnesses. I cannot help that the fictional prof in that plagiarized proverb is ignorant of the function of temperature and uses descriptive terms.

              I also cannot help that you are completely ignorant of the same when Eve and Adam are used as metaphors for a limited genetic pool of individuals at two separate population bottlenecks. You went no further than what somebody else wrote in a fit of prideful cleverness, never mind that the conclusion that you come to is not in any way correct.

              Science itself has no flaws. Scientists do. The process is good and it works. Bad measurements can be taken. Incorrect observations can be made. People’s biases can interfere with interpreting data. And so we work to prevent such mistakes with multiple measurements, careful recording and duplication of observers or observations, eliminating biases by repeating other scientists experiments and examining results with careful statistics.

              I have never seen the brain of a creationist, but I am certain that if I were to cut away the scalp and open the skull of even such a reprobate as Ken Ham, I would find a brain there. Why? Because nobody has found a functioning person without a brain. It is extremely unlikely that I would find him to be brainless. I have no reason to suspect otherwise, but should you like to offer yourself up for experimentation and we can secure IRB approval, I’m sure we can check to see if you have one, and I’d be happy to poke at it a few times just to be able to tell you that it was there. Hell, since you would have to be awake for the procedure, I’m sure you could reach up and give it a poke, too.

              I actually could prove that the birth certificate of Obama is real by examination and comparison of its paper to others from the same month, check the typeface, examine the ink by chemical processes. I could easily determine that in fact that the paper is a real and accurate document. I could examine copies of newspapers that announce the birth and verify their authenticity. I could demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii.


            • I love you, fracked again. I was going to reply as well, but my reply was merely going to be “you are painfully stupid.” I like your reply better.
              People get all pissy at athiests who are vocal. We’re vocal because it’s impossible not to be frustrated by idiocy.


            • Considering I had the chance a few years ago to talk to some Geologists and Archeologists who set out to prove Christianity wrong via their chosen science and then end up becoming Christians, or at least supporters of Intelligent design, I feel there is enough evidence to support the history shown in the bible.

              And btw, you would not have proved SCIENTIFICALLY where Obama came from, that would be Historically. You would be examining historic documents, not replicating an observable phenomenon. Its ok though, its a pretty common mistake. As it is, there are people with evidence that the document that has been shown, is in fact not authentic for a Hawaiian Birth Certificate. But that’s a completely different discussion.

              Mistaking Historical evidence for Scientific evidence is right there with proving the evolutionary theory, we have only observed Micro-Evolution, there is ZERO scientific or historical evidence for Macro-Evolution. I know, I know, there is the who trillions of years that would be required… but at the rate of decline of our sun that we have been able to observe for the past couple hundred years would have put us touching the surface of the sun in 20 million BC.

              John A. Eddy (Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century…corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. The sun was larger in the past than it is now by 0.1% per century. (Lubkin, Gloria B., Physics Today, V. 32, No. 9, 1979.) A creationist, who may believe that the world was created approximately 6 thousand years ago, has very little to worry about. The sun would have been only 6% larger at creation than it is now. However, if the rate of change of the solar radius remained constant, 100 thousand years ago the sun would be twice the size it is now. One could hardly imagine that any life could exist under such altered conditions. Yet 100 thousand years is a minute amount of time when dealing with evolutionary time scales. The time scales required for organic evolution range from 500 million years to 2,000 million years.3 It is amazing that all of this evolutionary development, except the last 20 million years, took place on a planet that was inside the sun. By 20 million B.C., all of evolution had occurred except the final stage, the evolution of the primate into man.

              The “Eve” and “Adam” that I posted about before would match up perfectly with Biblical Eve and Noah.

              And as for the evolution of man… stone blades have been found in Kenyan rock layers dated at about 500,000 years old according to evolutionary estimates. Thus, the original claim that “40,000 years ago, man made his first stone implements” was off by over 92 percent, suggesting that evolutionary depictions of human history are unreliable.
              -Gibbons, A. Oldest Stone Blades Uncovered. ScienceNOW Daily News. Posted on sciencenow.sciencemag.org April 2, 2009, accessed April 6, 2009.
              -Balter, M. The Long Road to Modernity. ScienceNOW Daily News. Posted on sciencenow.sciencemag.org December 1, 2008, accessed April 6, 2009. This article reported on the research published in Morgan, L. E. and P. R. Renne. 2008. Diachronous dawn of Africa’s Middle Stone Age: New 40Ar/39Ar ages from the Ethiopian Rift. Geology. 36 (12): 967-970.


            • Ital, you are a liar and scoundrel. I have no reason to believe your claim of converted scientists. It sounds like you are just repeating something from Lee Strobel, another professional liar for Jesus who claims, quite unconvincingly, to be a former atheist. Further more, intelligent design is disproved by looking at any part of the body. The heart seems amazing until you realize that it is based on a very simple reptilian design and has no backup circulation mechanism to ensure that a small blockage is not fatal. This is a mistake that no semi intelligent engineer would make, meaning that your intelligent designer is dumber than any living human with a few years of experience and a bare level of technical knowhow.

              As for the birth certificate, you can make your claim that others have demonstrated that it is fake, but again, you are just repeating the claims of cranks. Odd how conspiracy theorists never stop with just one. I would have shown, via science, that the document was real. That there were multiple sources of documentation. That should be enough to demonstrate, forensically, that there is no good reason to believe that Obama was born anywhere else.

              We have evidence of macro evolution. We have observed macro evolution. Don’t be a complete and total scientific illiterate. There is no magical barrier between small change and large change. As you have lunch today, munching on corn chips and eating bread made from wheat, you are eating something that is the product of evolution within recorded history, due to polypoid duplications and cross species pollination. Here are a couple other examples.
              Not mentioned here is evidence of the development of a cecal valve in a Mediterranean lizard transplanted to a new island, or the evolution of new metabolic pathways in carefully examined bacteria.

              We have the proof, you have only ignorance. The only excuse you could have to not know of these verifiable facts is that you prefer to remain ignorant and not risk your faith. That you choose to try to spread the contagion of ignorance makes you a disgusting individual.

              The Helmholtz contraction is of no concern as stars have been observed to expand and contract over periods of time. There is no reason to assume that our sun acts in a different manner.

              You can claim that mitochondrial Eve was really Edenic Eve, and that genetic Adam was really Noah, but thats just a hopeful wish with no evidence at all. Why do you accept one set of evidence arrived at by the scientific method, but not others?

              Finding stone tools in rock layers that are “too old” is also not a concern. Rocks erode, and sedimentary rocks are especially easy to erode. A tool ends up on an eroded bedrock and then ends up buried. Thats it. In fact, something similar happened where a modern hammer was found in calcium carbonate rock (which can be deposited rapidly) on top of fossil bearing cretaceous rocks.

              Give it up. You are anomaly hunting. Your god only exists where science has not yet looked. As we look closer and closer, your god has fewer places to hide and gets smaller and smaller.


            • Just because you choose not to belive my first hand account, does not mean there is a need to insult. A simple “I Don’t believe you” would have sufficed. But I forgot, you believe that we are just anotherr step in the evolutionary chain and there is no such thing as morality. There is just the “Law of the Jungle” in that the strongest mutation will survive. I choose to look at the evidence and believe differently.

              Your links still only show evolution w/in a species. Just because they cannot breed with each other does not mean they are a different species. A salamader is still that… I do not have links, but I have heard of situations where the problem with certain related species breeding was just diet. Of course you would probably just discount it even if I did show examples in a scientific, not Inteligent Design Theory, publication just like you ignored the previous citations of accepted scientific journelism.

              Some interesting things to look at (yes, Institute of Creation Research. However they point to standard Scientific Publications and Journels for the evidence)
              www.icr.org/articles/view/5311/288/ More Evolutionists Say ‘Ida’ Is Not a Missing Link
              www.icr.org/article/4760/288/ Flat-Faced Fossil Fails to Fit Evolution

              I have no problem with discussion. but there is obviously no point in continueing when you just want to argue and insult. Someday there may come evidence that will cause me to turn away from Christianity. But until then I am taking the safe route. If we die and there is no afterlife… then I missed out on nothing. But if we die and you miss out on heaven…

              Tell me this though… how do you justify a “moral Code” or a standard of how to treat others from an evolutionary standpoint? I will probably not respond as I have spent entirely too much time even just ½assing this today when I should have been working. But I will read it.


            • A moral code is one of the easiest things to explain from an evolutionary standpoint. It’s not unique to humans. All social animals have “morals”, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to function as a social unit. Try giving treats to one dog and nothing to another who is watching. The neglected dog knows very well that he has been treated unfairly. Humans with no social conscience are ostracized, imprisoned, executed. Therefore, they are less likely to pass on their genes.
              You think morals come from a magical, invisible, impossible to detect being? If that were so, wouldn’t we all just get along, naturally? If we were all made by the same magical being, then why do we kill each other over minor differences in our belief systems? Oh, I forgot, your belief system is the right one. The thousands of others, millions maybe, throughout the history of our species, are all incorrect. I just can’t understand how someone with a functioning brain could believe such nonsense. But, you seem to indicate you believe because of a combination of fear and hope. “I won’t get to heaven if I don’t believe!” Sweets, you won’t get to heaven because it doesn’t exist. Try to enjoy your life, it’s the only one you get.


            • You aren’t lying? Then your buds were shitty scientists with poor capacity for detecting baloney.

              You don’t get to just believe differently and ignore evidence that is unhelpful to you. Also, you are a liar. I do not believe that there is no such thing as morality, but rather that morality and religion are separate. Beyond that, I am more moral than Jesus, in that I condemn slavery and support standing up against oppression, and I am more moral that YHWH as I both condemn slavery and consider rape as a means of marriage proposal to be evil. I also stand against genocide and don’t send my kid to die for a weekend in order to slake my bloodthirst for blood sacrifice. Morals, in fact, are a selectable trait in populations. The strongest does not always survive, see mules. A population with no altruism will not be as fit as one with. Strength alone is not enough. There are other factors involved in fitness.

              “Just because they cannot breed with each other does not mean they are a different species.” Almost there. A species is that, plus any offspring are unable to produce fertile offspring of both genders. You are mistaking the biblical (and scientifically illiterate, bronze age concept of a “kind”) for There are multiple species of salamander. If a population cannot successfully interbreed with another, they are separate.

              “Of course you would probably just discount it even if I did show examples in a scientific, not Inteligent Design Theory, publication just like you ignored the previous citations of accepted scientific journelism.” I did no such thing. You are lying again. You have offered no scientific evidence for your position to date that was not better explained by simple understanding of geology or genetics. Offer some evidence and not baloney and we can talk.

              “More Evolutionists Say ‘Ida’ Is Not a Missing Link” — So? This is a misrepresentation of scientific debate as to where ‘Ida’ belongs within the family tree, not if evolution occurs. More falsehoods from professional liars.

              “Flat-Faced Fossil Fails to Fit Evolution” — Again, so? Its just trying to frame scientific discussion and qualified language as evidence for a special creation. Sorry, but that isn’t how science works. Even if you were able to disprove evolution by natural selection, and considering how obvious it is that you don’t understand even the basic definitions used, that isn’t going to happen, but even if you could, that wouldn’t make creationism true.

              “I have no problem with discussion. but there is obviously no point in continueing when you just want to argue and insult.” Call the WAAAAAHmbulence. You lie and repeat lies of others. You show no intellectual curiosity and peddle the known fraud of the added portion of the Josephus text. I offer scorn and ridicule because that is all you have shown yourself of deserving.

              “Someday there may come evidence that will cause me to turn away from Christianity. But until then I am taking the safe route. If we die and there is no afterlife… then I missed out on nothing. But if we die and you miss out on heaven…” Somebody call Pascal! You have missed out. You have missed out on a world without superstition and fear of hell for sins that harm none. You have wasted your life supporting leeches and vampires on society, producing no valuable service, elevating themselves as men of a bronze age god. And even if you were right, I take the moral high ground and refuse to offer worship to such an evil creature as the god of the Bible.

              “Tell me this though… how do you justify a “moral Code” or a standard of how to treat others from an evolutionary standpoint? I will probably not respond as I have spent entirely too much time even just ½assing this today when I should have been working. But I will read it.”

              I don’t expect you to respond. You are just another drive by, cowardly god buggerer. You can’t hold to a specific thought and try to weasel out of honest commentary by copying and pasting the words of others. When you find one route blocked (adam/eve) you drop it and take up another (stone tools on eroded bedrock), throwing one thing after another, hoping that something sticks.

              I already explained how morality can be a selectable trait, as natural selection acts on populations, not individuals. Morals are a product of a society, not that of a godling. Hence, churches of well meaning people can support hellish and evil treatment of women, other races, children, etc. Christianity is the religion of love, and Islam is the religion of peace. Except when they aren’t. I am a moral person not because of some innate word of one god or another, but because of my upbringing, my experiences, my understanding of those that I have harmed by my actions, my compassion for those in pain. None of those come from a god, but from philosophy and experience, added to the selectable traits of altruism and empathy.


            • Atheists have just as much right to be vocal as the religious folks, however, I’m just not entirely sure why you all have to be so angry. And antagonizing too. To me, it’s almost like yelling at a dog because it doesn’t understand how a cats mind works. Insults and yelling is not going to make it any clearer…


            • Well, some people are very worthy/easy/dumb/begging for it targets. Also, the intertubes have a tendency to draw out the predator in some and the helpless baby antelope with a bum leg and googly eye.


            • Since you didn’t like my links to a creationist website… how about Harvard? adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ…248.1144G

              I have to say that you have made some good arguments (in between your degrogatory comments) that have caused me to take a renewed interest in all this. I love finding things like that the current gravatational energy of the planets in our solar system are consistent with a approx 6,000 year old universe. I also find it interesting that Saturn and Juter are putting off more energy that could be accounted for by just reflecting light from the Sun. Some other things I just pasted below for full effect. I know you probably will just respond with things like “you ignorant fuck” but I would much prefer links and quotes showing any fallacies in the information that I have come across. I have been double checking ddates to make sure I am looking at recent findings. I was being a dunce before in quoteing and referenceing old material that has since been updated.

              Fast Facts
              -Spiral galaxies rotate much too quickly for an old universe. They would be twisted beyond recognition if they were really as old as secular astronomers claim.
              -The magnetic fields of planets and moons in our solar system are consistent with their age of a few thousand years, but are much too strong for an age of billions of years.
              -The debris shed by disintegrating comets is what causes meteor showers. Since earth intersects such a debris field once each year, most meteor showers are annual.

              Researchers have hypothesized that nuclear reactions are occurring in the core of Jupiter as a result of burning deuterium (heavy hydrogen). This requires a core temperature of 160,000 K, some 8 times hotter than the present models of Jupiter. Will this produce the extra energy? To make this work, most of the deuterium available throughout Jupiter had to simultaneously descend to its core when Jupiter formed so the deuterium would be hot enough to ignite. Once it ignited, it would burn happily for 10 billion years or more and keep Jupiter hot. This would give us a hot Jupiter like the one we see today. At first, this solution appears to be ingenious. The snag is that the deuterium layer has to assemble itself at just the right time and at the right place to sustain Jupiter’s core temperature. The same unlikely event must be repeated on Neptune.

              The definition of a star is any large, self-gravitating gaseous sphere with continued nuclear reactions in its core. Our sun is a star. It burns hydrogen in its core. But if Jupiter and Neptune have nuclear reactions in their cores, then they are dwarf suns. There would be three suns in our solar system.

              Did you know that George Darwin, the astronomer son of the famous Charles Darwin, discovered that the moon is slowly spiraling away from the earth. The cause of this effect is the tidal interaction of the earth and moon, which also causes the earth’s rotation rate (the day) to slowly increase. We cannot theoretically predict the rate of tidal evolution, because it depends upon the complex interplay of the ocean tides with the continental shelves. However, we can measure the current rate. Each year the moon moves about 4 cm farther from the earth, and the day is increasing at a rate of 0.0016 seconds per century. These are very modest changes, but over time they accumulate. More interesting, the rate of tidal evolution is a very steep function of the earth-moon distance, so in the past when the moon was much closer to the earth, the rate to change would have been far greater than today. Fixing the modern rate and extrapolating the theory into the past, we find that the moon would have been in contact with the earth as recently as 1.3 billion years ago, about one-third the supposed age of the earth-moon system. About a billion years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth to cause monstrously high tides. No one believes that this was the case.

              Does this mean that the earth-moon system is only 6,000 years old? No, but this is consistent with a 6,000 year old earth-moon system. That is, this information does not eliminate the possibility that the earth-moon system is 6,000 years old, as it does for a 4.5 billion year old system. How do those who believe that the earth and moon are billions of years old respond to this? They assert that we live in a time of unusually fast tidal interaction, and that in the past the tidal interaction was far less. This is a possibility, but how does it stand up to scrutiny? Let us assume that the world is billions of years old and that rock layers have been laid down over time pretty much as scientists claim. There have been several studies of fine layers of sedimentary rock that supposedly show daily high and low tides. This establishes a relationship between the lengths of the day and the month, which are all that are needed to track tidal evolution. These studies span over a half billion years and show that the current rate has been prevalent during this time. This means that by the evolutionists’ own data the current rate of tidal evolution is not unusually large, and that there must have been some large event a little more than a billion years ago. This is not a problem for the recent creationist, but it is for those who believe that the earth and moon are more than a billion years old.

              Similar evidence comes from the sun. We believe that the sun gets its energy from the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in its core. According to the theory, the sun has enough nuclear fuel to power itself for about 10 billion years. If the sun is 4.5 billion years old, then it has exhausted about half of its potential lifetime. During those 4.5 billion years the sun would not have remained static—the sun must have gradually changed. The conversion of hydrogen into helium in the solar core would have altered the core’s composition, which would have resulted in the sun’s core slowly shrinking and increasing in temperature. This would have increased the nuclear fusion rate and hence brightened the sun. Calculation shows that the sun ought to be about 40 percent brighter today than when it allegedly formed 4.5 billion years ago and that the sun ought to be 30 percent brighter today than when life supposedly appeared on the earth 3.5 billion years ago. With all the concern today with global warming that some fear will happen if we increase the retention of solar energy only slightly, one must wonder what effect that gradual solar warming would have had. If there had been no change in the terrestrial atmosphere over billions of years, there would have been a 16–18 C increase in the average earth temperature. Since the current average earth temperature is about 15 C, the early earth ought to have had an average temperature below freezing. No one believes that this is the case. Most assume that the average terrestrial temperature has not changed much, if at all, during earth history.


            • If you were actually interested in learning things instead of just repeating the lies of creationists, you would do simple google searches to find out if the things you are saying are correct or not. So what if Harvard has a webpage supporting a short term (in geological time) minor shrinkage in the sun? It says nothing about the fact that other stars have been observed shrinking and expanding and our star likely follows similar patterns. I’ll reply to the rest of your idiocy later.

              You can try to take the high road by whining about my insults, but I’ll only quit insulting your stupidity when you stop insulting me with your ignorance.


            • ID. Either start paraphrasing these arguments and quit cutting and pasting from creationist midden heaps or get the fuck out. Until you do this, I will continue to call you out for being a disrespectful rotting piece of cum stained fecal matter, drying in the sun, only to be eaten by flies, vomited forth again and swallowed once more to be shat out in its original form.

              As long as you disrespect me by putting forth copied and pasted lies, offering no good faith effort to try to find just one strong piece of evidence by fact checking, I will continue to give you the appropriate level of respect that any inbred fuckstick deserves.

              “I love finding things like that the current gravatational energy of the planets in our solar system are consistent with a approx 6,000 year old universe.”

              Just another unsupported lie. There would be no way of telling the difference between a solar system created with the current planetary motion, one created last Tuesday and one that developed in the ways proposed by cosmologists by observing planetary nebulae and acretion disks. However, since we can see light from stars more than 6000 light years distant, along with a plethora of other evidence based details, it is far more reasonable to accept a modern science based explanation instead of a bronze age one.

              “I also find it interesting that Saturn and Juter are putting off more energy that could be accounted for by just reflecting light from the Sun. Some other things I just pasted below for full effect.”

              Lie. talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE231.html

              I know you probably will just respond with things like “you ignorant fuck” but I would much prefer links and quotes showing any fallacies in the information that I have come across.

              True. You ignorant fuck.

              “I have been double checking ddates to make sure I am looking at recent findings. I was being a dunce before in quoteing and referenceing old material that has since been updated.”

              But you never bothered to check if it was correct or presented honestly. That is why you always fail. You also seem to find simple spell checking impossible.

              “Fast Facts”

              Explosive Diarrhea.

              -Spiral galaxies rotate much too quickly for an old universe. They would be twisted beyond recognition if they were really as old as secular astronomers claim

              Lie. talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE380.html

              -The magnetic fields of planets and moons in our solar system are consistent with their age of a few thousand years, but are much too strong for an age of billions of years.

              Lie. talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

              -The debris shed by disintegrating comets is what causes meteor showers. Since earth intersects such a debris field once each year, most meteor showers are annual.

              So what? This is a non sequitur. Planets clear out most of the detritus in their path, so new material from comet trails would be expected as the primary source of meteor showers as opposed to meteorites.

              “Researchers have hypothesized that nuclear reactions are occurring in the core of Jupiter…”

              Please maintain some form of reasonable formatting in your treatises. Your Jovian baloney is dealt with above, but never mind that without sufficient oxygen, hydrogen does not burn and the mass of Jupiter is insufficient for fusion. The heat of any planetary body is likely multifactorial, including dynamic motion of the liquid helium core, while your lie is based on the assumption that there is only a single source.

              “The definition of a star is any large…”

              Jupiter and Neptune do not have fusion reactions within them, and you, Ken Ham, and his pet scientist/scam artists are complete idiots who can’t even be bothered keeping your beliefs in the realm of reasonable science fiction. I feel for his fake scientists. They can’t hold real jobs in academics because they get wrapped up in pathological levels of faith and ignore the duties of their jobs. It must be very tempting to rip off scientifically illiterate mouth breathers like yourself for donations and speaking fees, especially when it pays better than being a real working researcher. The worst part of it is that they took up a student slot that could have been taken by someone who would produce work for society instead of living as an unproductive parasite.

              Do you understand this? Ham, Hovind, Behe, Gish and their failed scientist lackeys are parasites living off of happy idiots like you and produce nothing whatsoever of worth. And when one of you shit for brains gets on a board of education and tries to push ignorance in the place of science, you always end up wasting incredible amounts of taxpayer money, because you always lose. You prevent kids from getting the education they should have, first in those that are taught baseless mythologies, and then in those that come later, when a lawsuit impoverished school system has to let teachers go, not buy computers, or even pay to have the lights on for a full school year, leading to shortened terms.

              “Did you know that George Darwin, the astronomer son of the famous Charles Darwin, discovered that the moon is slowly spiraling away from the earth.”

              Lie. talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof5

              George Darwin would give you much deserved kick in the balls.

              “Similar evidence comes from the sun…”

              And you just have to finish it up with more lies. talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE311.html

              What have you learned from this? Apparently nothing. You haven’t figured out that not one of your arguments works beyond a simple glance. In fact, not a single one of your arguments is new. Creationists have no new hypotheses, just repetitions of long disproved streams of bullshit. Thats why I can just skim through a list of creationist claims and find all of yours right there. Your beliefs are out of date and unsupported by science, and yet, you point to an out of context concept such as MitoEve and ChromAdam with complete acceptance.

              Why is it that you accept some science when it appears supportive but reject everything else?

              I’ve asked you this repeatedly, but you won’t answer it. If your Bronze age creation myth, plagiarized from the Babylonians, is so important to you, why do you even try to support it with science? Isn’t it good enough to stand on its own, or does it need a thick lacquering of lies and bullshit for you stomach it? Is your faith so weak that realizing that one little detail in your not so Good Book is wrong, that the rest of it might be too?


    12. No one cares what you or anyone else believes, to think so is idiocy please stop posting crap about why you are this or that. because I certainly don’t want to see it and I don’t think I am alone. Keep your beliefs to the one person who actually cares about them your damn self.


    13. I’m an atheist because it scares away all the people I wouldn’t want to talk to anyhow.




    15. I’m an atheist because I believe the preoccupation of supernatural divinity is a fruitless endeavor.

      Plus I went to Catholic school. You should have heard the shit they tried to get me to believe in.


    16. I’m an atheist because I don’t need to know why there is a big fiery ball in the sky and if I’ve angered it in some way. This is also the reason why I’m not a scientist either. My life has purpose because I give it one.


    17. Also my ism is strong and my curls are tight. That’s all, that’s it, good night.


    18. Tl:dr



    19. “Trying to reconcile religion with science is a mug’s game. Trying to reconcile scripture with science is a mug’s game, because science and faith are separate and irreconcilable ways of knowing. Science give you proof without certainty and faith gives you certainty without proof. From the religious perspective, the Invisible World is outside the realm of science whether it exists or not. From the scientific perspective, faith cheats. Every so often some jackleg theologian will see this or that scientific theory that seems to confirm a religious belief and will say to himself, “Ah ha! Science has come to support religion!” The question that has to be asked of such a person is, if this scientific theory is overturned in ten years, are you going to renounce your faith? Science changes, religion doesn’t. The reigning scientific theory isn’t “proven,” it’s the best one available under current knowledge. There are no certainties in science: A scientific “fact” is a theory whose probability of being true is so great that it would be perverse to deny it. The theory of evolution, for example. What the fundamentalist wants to hear from the scientist is that the world could only come into being by way of a creator, and that’s an answer science isn’t equipped to give.”


      • I like science _because_ it changes. Because it is open to change. Religion is not. It’s stagnant, and ignorant. Most religious people pride themselves on their religion’s long(ish) history, rather than being embarrassed that they are following a belief system fabricated by ignorant, bewildered, short-lived, flea-ridden fools.


        • I agree with HoChunks perspective on this almost exactly.

          And I can also see your point critter, but what happened to not throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Organized Religion itself is actually quite good for what it was intended for, which was to teach positive life lessons The angry among us might argue that it’s sole purpose is indoctrination and control, and they would also be partially right, though I would argue that every society does this in some way shape or form.

          Religion as a belief system, or series of texts, is stagnant, that I agree with, however it is hardly ignorant or foolish. The vast majority of religious texts and the lessons therein are written in metaphor, because back then, certain aspects of the sociocultural framework we take for granted today did not exist.

          Lessons were much easier to teach that way. And for the most part they imparted good advice. But more importantly, the metaphors could be interpreted in many ways, giving them a more universal appeal. Even today there are religious stories and metaphors that have still not lost their meaning, in spite of being thousands of years out of context.

          But this is also a double edged sword. I think the problem we see today is there are a lot of religious people misinterpreting these texts, and just basically applying the tenets of their religion improperly. Some of them are not thinking straight. others are, in fact, idiots. But that does not mean there is nothing good that can be taken away from Religion as a whole.

          As with anything, it must be used correctly in order for it to yield positive results.


    20. This thread has become chock full of all kinds of brilliant win. I love it!


    21. I used to tell people that I was “agnostic” just so I wouldn’t hurt their feelings. Now I just say Atheist because now I don’t give a shit about their feelings.


    22. I’m an atheist. Or maybe I’m not. If you never know, I’m happy that way, because I don’t really give a shit about pushing my beliefs on you and every other person I talk to.

      Evangelism is annoying as fuck, whether it’s for or against religion.


      • I’m opposed to stupid people. I can’t help it that creationists and believers of intelligent design fall into this category. I also hate politicians, child and animal abusers, thieves, psychopaths, and people who step on bugs because they think they are icky. And clowns. And mimes. Although Doug Jones is cool, even though he’s a religious mime (shudder).


    23. how can people trust anything they’ve been fed by an organised religion. even Christianity’s rock “Jesus” is a stolen deity from an older Persian religion called Mithraism

      the religion was merged with Christianity to form a new Christianity by emperor Constantine who wished to keep his standing with the mithraists as well

      check out the similarities to jesus

      Mithras was born on December 25th

      He was considered a great travelling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles

      Mithra was called “the good shepherd, “the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, saviour, Messiah

      The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water and consecrated wine

      He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again

      Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, “the Lord’s Day

      how can you believe what’s fed to you from ancient texts that were vetted by “organised religion”?

      religion is the whip that has made the stupid bow before those wishing to take advantage of them.


      • In checking out Mithras….

        Owing to the cult’s secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism. The few texts that do refer to the cult come not from Mithraic devotees themselves, but rather from outsiders such as early Church fathers

        A similarity between Mithra and Christ struck even early observers, such as Justin, Tertullian, and other Fathers, and in recent times has been urged to prove that Christianity is but an adaptation of Mithraism, or at most the outcome of the same religious ideas and aspirations (e.g. Robertson, “Pagan Christs”, 1903). Against this erroneous and unscientific procedure, which is not endorsed by the greatest living authority on Mithraism, the following considerations must be brought forward.

        (1) Our knowledge regarding Mithraism is very imperfect; some 600 brief inscriptions, mostly dedicatory, some 300 often fragmentary, exiguous, almost identical monuments, a few casual references in the Fathers or Acts of the Martyrs, and a brief polemic against Mithraism which the Armenian Eznig about 450 probably copied from Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) who lived when Mithraism was almost a thing of the past — these are our only sources, unless we include the Avesta in which Mithra is indeed mentioned, but which cannot be an authority for Roman Mithraism with which Christianity is compared. Our knowledge is mostly ingenious guess-work; of the real inner working of Mithraism and the sense in which it was understood by those who professed it at the advent of Christianity, we know nothing.

        (2) Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. Tertullian about 200 could say: “hesterni sumus et omnia vestra implevimus” (“we are but of yesterday, yet your whole world is full of us”). It is not unnatural to suppose that a religion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called a mediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochtonos and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence.

        (3) Christ was an historical personage, recently born in a well-known town of Judea, and crucified under a Roman governor, whose name figured in the ordinary official lists. Mithra was an abstraction, a personification not even of the sun but of the diffused daylight; his incarnation, if such it may be called, was supposed to have happened before the creation of the human race, before all history. The small Mithraic congregations were like masonic lodges for a few and for men only and even those mostly of one class, the military; a religion that excludes the half of the human race bears no comparison to the religion of Christ. Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty.


        • your second source there is quite a biased one, especially as it’s a Christian website.

          mithra dates back to 1400bc which kinda shows it doesn’t borrow from Christianity
          (encyclopaedia Britannica)

          in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology, the god of light, whose cult spread from India in the east to as far west as Spain, Great Britain, and Germany. (See Mithraism.) The first written mention of the Vedic Mitra dates to 1400 bc. His worship spread to Persia and, after the defeat of the Persians by Alexander the Great, throughout the Hellenic world. In the 3rd and 4th centuries ad, the cult of Mithra, carried and supported by the soldiers of the Roman Empire


    24. OK… So… Wait.
      Are we saying the burden of proof doesn’t lie on religion?


    25. Some christian just shit in their pants. Even though I didn’t see it happen, I know it happened.

      Miracle foresight? Or a lol god? Or chance?


    26. ooo science seems to explain everything. 500 years ago probably did religion and before that some other shit. mmmmh.


    Reply to AY! Eat Ya Veggies! ¬
    Cancel reply

    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Architecture Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas