Holy War Breaks Out at Public University Over Atheism, Evolution and Intelligent Design

Oct 4, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TheBlaze.com

When atheist activists launched a battle over intelligent design at Ball State University earlier this year, they sparked a holy war in higher education that has university officials scrambling to critically examine courses and professorial credentials.

Comments (Page 5)

Showing posts 81 - 100 of207
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Oct 10, 2013
 
OK, the fact is that your post was bollocks.
True Christian witness wrote:
<quoted text>
Since that word is not in my dictionaries, I'll say...
Nah, just facts.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Is stating that US paper currency seemed to do OK up until 1957 without proclaiming "in god we trust" aggressive?

If in the future less than 50% Americans believed in god would you agree to the removal of "in god we trust"? Is that aggressive?

Is believing in hell aggressive?
Rambeaux wrote:
<quoted text>An aggressive atheist is one who denigrates and humiliates people of faith, calling them insane, delusional, and other words, openly. Also calling for the removal of the phrase:IN GOD WE TRUST from all US currency. Agreed this is a small percentage of all atheists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

True Christian witness wrote:
True Christians will not debate the issue of life, it is common knowledge that everything alive has parents, that should be sufficient, but every other thing living also had to have a beginning even insects.
The fact that life cannot live without water, air or nourishment should give us the confidence we need to put our faith in a Creator, who just happens to have a name, Jehovah, which means he who causes to become.
This Creator did not leave his creation of living human beings without a manual to guide and direct them to the best life they can have, it's called the Bible.
So if you are an Atheist you are being forced to obey the laws of the Creator of this earth, to live on his earth, to breathe his air and eat his food and enjoy whatever life style you have now, you just won't have any inheritance.
No, actually YOU won't have any inheritance because you will end up as target practice for Thor's hammer in Valhalla.

Silly fundie.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Sharks. Great example. I always think of coelacanths as an example of a species changing very little over deep time.
Another excellent pair of examples are sea turtles and crocodiles.

We have discovered lovely fossils of each, dating back millions and millions of years, and yet-- are quite similar to modern examples.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

Thinking wrote:
Bollocks.
<quoted text>
Or I could have just said that.(shrug)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhm yeo I did say "If you want to teach evolution by natural selection I see no problem with that. But there is no need to teach that life arose from a muddy soup along with it for it can not be proven with evidence any more than a God can."
Which is stating if neither can be proven do not teach either. God or abiogenesis. Funny you think that is a bad thing being you knock God all the time.
"god" isn't a valid hypothesis.

Mainly due to the total lack of any FACTS which suggest such a beast.

So it's not "either or" as you vainly try to make it.

It's abiogenesis or some other **reasonable** mechanism.

And your idea of "god" isn't reasonable-- by definition.

Faith is the suspension of reason, after all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhm yeo I did say "If you want to teach evolution by natural selection I see no problem with that. But there is no need to teach that life arose from a muddy soup along with it for it can not be proven with evidence any more than a God can."
Which is stating if neither can be proven do not teach either. God or abiogenesis. Funny you think that is a bad thing being you knock God all the time.
If god were **really** real?

Could not he defend himself from all the .... "mocking"?

No?

Hmmmm... not much of a god, is it?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Rambeaux wrote:
<quoted text>An aggressive atheist is one who denigrates and humiliates people of faith, calling them insane, delusional, and other words, openly. Also calling for the removal of the phrase:IN GOD WE TRUST from all US currency. Agreed this is a small percentage of all atheists.
I don't think calling for a removal of a blatantly unConstitutional religious phrase from public currency which was forced on there illegally in the first place is an act of aggression.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Rambeaux wrote:
Actually, most Christian and Jewish students are tolerant of non-aggressive atheists. Muslims not so much.
Actually?

... not so much.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
"god" isn't a valid hypothesis.
Mainly due to the total lack of any FACTS which suggest such a beast.
So it's not "either or" as you vainly try to make it.
It's abiogenesis or some other **reasonable** mechanism.
And your idea of "god" isn't reasonable-- by definition.
Faith is the suspension of reason, after all.
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Do show some evidence where they have tested/observed abiogenesis.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
If god were **really** real?
Could not he defend himself from all the .... "mocking"?
No?
Hmmmm... not much of a god, is it?
Why would God or a God feel the need to defend himself to idiots?

Exactly. There is no reason of it.

Is love real? You hear about love, you talk about love, you feel love.

But you can't see it. You can't actually get ahold of it and feel it. It can't defend itself. So it must not be real right?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#93
Oct 10, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.
Do show some evidence where they have tested/observed abiogenesis.
Creationist idiots that cannot accept the fact of evolution shouldn't really be sharing their mentally ill opinions in public forums.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
Oct 10, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would God or a God feel the need to defend himself to idiots?
Exactly. There is no reason of it.
Is love real? You hear about love, you talk about love, you feel love.
But you can't see it. You can't actually get ahold of it and feel it. It can't defend itself. So it must not be real right?
Cowardly religious liars like to move the discussion away from the lack of proof of god when given the chance.

Love is just a name for a behaviour found in mammals, like god, you can't actually define it, which is why religious liars like to bring it up when confronted for lying about god.

It's shameful that creationist cannot defend their god and have lie and mislead people away from the hard facts.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowardly religious liars like to move the discussion away from the lack of proof of god when given the chance.
Love is just a name for a behaviour found in mammals, like god, you can't actually define it, which is why religious liars like to bring it up when confronted for lying about god.
It's shameful that creationist cannot defend their god and have lie and mislead people away from the hard facts.
Then I suggest you stop doing so.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#96
Oct 10, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I suggest you stop doing so.
Says the creationist with no proof of god and no arguments to defend his fraudulent cult.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
Oct 10, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I suggest you stop doing so.
I suggest you prove your god, that way you will look a lot less like a mentally ill brainwashed cult idiot who can't bear to read anything critical about his failing cult

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
Oct 10, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would God or a God feel the need to defend himself to idiots?
Exactly. There is no reason of it.
Is love real? You hear about love, you talk about love, you feel love.
But you can't see it. You can't actually get ahold of it and feel it. It can't defend itself. So it must not be real right?
Arrogant creationists who think they are smart, always get bitter when they are directly confronted for lying on behalf of their cults.

Its expected behavior for trained creationist liars.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the creationist with no proof of god and no arguments to defend his fraudulent cult.
Says the one that thinks judgits give him power. LMFAO

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100
Oct 10, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the one that thinks judgits give him power. LMFAO
Another opportunity to prove the god you've been exposed for lying about, wasted.

Will weak, bitter creationist trolls ever learn the error of their ways?

Please keep posting so we can continue to highlight your stupidity for all and make more atheists.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Oct 10, 2013
 
Lets watch replaytime meltdown and insult atheists, instead of prove the god he was caught lying about for his fraudulent 2005 failed neocon cult.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 81 - 100 of207
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••