Atheism is a Mental Illness, Says Creationist

Jun 23, 2009 Full story: The Daily Irrelevant 5,457

Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 17:57 by John Sinteur in category: Pastafarian News -- Bwinwright then claims to know the key to winning any argument with any atheist.

Full Story
GodisAnEyeball

London, KY

#5456 Aug 3, 2009
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay be honest. Have you now decided to post here after you've downed at least 10 kegs of home-made ale?
I don't drink. OR do drugs.
SO you can stop with your false proganda slanderous liabel, lame azz, ignorant bullsnit.
GodisAnEyeball

London, KY

#5457 Aug 3, 2009
ScienceRules wrote:
<quoted text>
That you're a fence post and bring nothing to the table? Thanks for admitting it; I'm shocked.
<quoted text>
OK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecule...
This is a list of molecules that have been detected in the interstellar medium, grouped by the number of component atoms. The chemical formula is listed for each detected compound, along with any ionized form that has also been observed. The molecules listed below were detected by spectroscopy. Their spectral features are generated by transitions of component electrons between different energy levels, or by rotational or vibrational spectra. Detection usually occurs in radio, microwave, or infrared portions of the spectrum.[1] The first such molecule to be detected in the interstellar medium was the methylidyne radical (CH) in 1937.[2]
Interstellar molecules are formed by chemical reactions within very sparse interstellar or circumstellar clouds of dust and gas. Usually this occurs when a molecule becomes ionized, often as the result of an interaction with a cosmic ray. This positively-charged molecule then draws in a nearby reactant by electrostatic attraction of the neutral molecule's electrons. Molecules can also be generated by reactions between neutral atoms and molecules, although this process is generally slower.[3]
A particularly large and rich region for detecting interstellar molecules is Sagittarius B2 (Sgr B2). This giant molecular cloud lies near the center of the Milky Way galaxy and is a frequent target for new searches. About half of the molecules listed below were first found near Sgr B2, and nearly every other molecule has since been detected in this feature.[
[edit]Molecules
The following tables list molecules that have been detected in the interstellar medium, grouped by the number of component atoms. If there is no entry in the Molecule column, only the ionized form has been detected. For molecules where no designation was given in the scientific literature, that field is left empty.
Molecule Designation Ions
AlCl Aluminium monochloride[6][7]—
AlF Aluminium monofluoride[8][6]—
AlO Aluminium monoxide[9]—
C2 Carbon dimer[10][11]—
— Fluoromethylidynium CF+[12]
CH Methylidyne radical[13] CH+[14]
CN Cyanogen radical[15][16][6][13]—
CO Carbon monoxide[6] CO+[17]
CP Carbon monophosphide[16]—
CS Carbon monosulfide[6]—
FeO Iron(II) oxide[18]—
H2 Molecular hydrogen[19]—
HCl Hydrogen chloride[20]—
HF Hydrogen fluoride[21]—
HN Nitrogen monohydride[22]—
HO Hydroxyl radical[6]—
KCl Potassium chloride[6][7]—
N2 Molecular nitrogen[23]—
NO Nitric oxide[24]—
NS Nitrogen sulfide[6]—
NaCl Sodium chloride[6][7]—
O2 Molecular oxygen[25]—
PN Phosphorus nitride[26]—
PO Phosphorus monoxide[27]—
SH Sulfur hydride[28] SH+[29]
SO Sulfur monoxide[6] SO+[14]
SiC Carborundum[30][6]—
SiN Silicon mononitride[6]—
SiO Silicon monoxide[6]—
SiS Silicon monosulfide[6]—
(The list goes on for quite a while)
<quoted text>
Promise?
After you define ~interstellar~and the *Milky Way galaxy*...uhhh...throw in the define of constellations while your at it lol.

Make sure your sources are ACCURATE, and cite them as well please.
ScienceRules

Burlington, VT

#5458 Aug 3, 2009
GodisAnEyeball wrote:
<quoted text>
After you define ~interstellar~and the *Milky Way galaxy*...uhhh...throw in the define of constellations while your at it lol.
Make sure your sources are ACCURATE, and cite them as well please.
You said there were no molecules in space. You didn't define space did you? I didn't have to define anything. I gave you one link; there are many more. Of course if you want to define space as "the place where there no molecules" then you will be at home ("the bible is true because it says so"). You are a dunce.
GodisAnEyeball

London, KY

#5459 Aug 3, 2009
ScienceRules wrote:
<quoted text>
You said there were no molecules in space. You didn't define space did you? I didn't have to define anything. I gave you one link; there are many more. Of course if you want to define space as "the place where there no molecules" then you will be at home ("the bible is true because it says so"). You are a dunce.
and you're a turtle-shell head!
Now, Don't make me if.. else lol.
ScienceRules

Burlington, VT

#5460 Aug 3, 2009
GodisAnEyeball wrote:
<quoted text>
and you're a turtle-shell head!
Now, Don't make me if.. else lol.
I feel sorry for you. I assume your life is one random brain spasm after the other, with people either running away from you or calling the police in abject fear.
GodisAnEyeball

Mount Vernon, KY

#5461 Aug 3, 2009
ScienceRules wrote:
<quoted text>
I feel sorry for you. I assume your life is one random brain spasm after the other, with people either running away from you or calling the police in abject fear.
Okkkkk...sure..and the sky is pink and purple polka dot striped.
formerly really

San Pedro, CA

#5462 Aug 3, 2009
GodisAnEyeball wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't drink. OR do drugs.
SO you can stop with your false proganda slanderous liabel, lame azz, ignorant bullsnit.
Slander and libel are two different things.Slander specifiaclly refers to the spoken word; it's not possible to slander someone in writing.

Once again, you've clearly demonstrated that you have the barest grasp of a subject but are under the impression, somehow, that you instead have deep understanding.

“Hello homo sapiens sapiens.”

Since: Mar 07

A galaxy near you.

#5463 Aug 3, 2009
GodisAnEyeball wrote:
<quoted text>
Okkkkk...sure..and the sky is pink and purple polka dot striped.
Depends on what you've been taking.
The Dude

UK

#5464 Aug 3, 2009
GodisAnEyeball wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't drink. OR do drugs.
SO you can stop with your false proganda slanderous liabel, lame azz, ignorant bullsnit.
Boy, you're so sensitive.

I wasn't actually claiming you were an alcoholic, unfortunately the sarcasm was missed in there. Let me put it another way:

Don't blame us if your posts are full o'crap.(shrug)
GodisAnEyeball

London, KY

#5465 Aug 3, 2009
formerly really wrote:
<quoted text>
Slander and libel are two different things.Slander specifiaclly refers to the spoken word; it's not possible to slander someone in writing.
Once again, you've clearly demonstrated that you have the barest grasp of a subject but are under the impression, somehow, that you instead have deep understanding.
You must just like ignorance.

There is a new set of laws regarding the net.
Look them up sometime.
GodisAnEyeball

London, KY

#5466 Aug 3, 2009
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, you're so sensitive.
I wasn't actually claiming you were an alcoholic, unfortunately the sarcasm was missed in there. Let me put it another way:
Don't blame us if your posts are full o'crap.(shrug)
Yeah, it just sounded plain old ignorant, like what you've just repeated again.
Insanity-doing the same thing over and over.
Does it make you feel better to go on an internet message board and do nothing more than type in ignorance?

Sorry... not into that crap.
GodisAnEyeball

London, KY

#5467 Aug 3, 2009
DebJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on what you've been taking.
Guess so huh!
GodisAnEyeball

London, KY

#5468 Aug 3, 2009
libel-
2 a : a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words; specifically : a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt b : the publication of such a libel c : the crime or tort of publishing a libel
GodisAnEyeball

London, KY

#5469 Aug 3, 2009
defamation-

Main Entry: de·fa·ma·tion
Pronunciation: "de-f&-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person —see also LIBEL, SLANDER New York Times Company v. Sullivan in the IMPORTANT CASES section —compare DISPARAGEMENT, FALSE LIGHT, SLANDER OF TITLE
2 : a defamatory communication defamation is a publication —W. L. Prosser and W. Pacific Reporter Keeton>
ScienceRules

Plainfield, VT

#5470 Aug 3, 2009
GodisAnEyeball wrote:
<quoted text>
You must just like ignorance.
There is a new set of laws regarding the net.
Look them up sometime.
Apparently your ignorance of the law exceeds your ignorance of science. For defamation of character to occur, whether through libel or slander, there needs to be a victim, an actual identified individual person or entity. Since you are anonymous here on topix, nothing said about your screen identity can rise to defamation of character because your screen persona isn't 'you'. A good analogy would be slandering a fictional character on a TV show; the real actor would have no claim to defamation of character. Now, if you chose to reveal your actual identify here on topix, then defamation of character could be an issue.

Do you bother to research ANYTHING before you post?
formerly really

San Pedro, CA

#5471 Aug 3, 2009
GodisAnEyeball wrote:
defamation-
Main Entry: de·fa·ma·tion
Pronunciation: "de-f&-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person —see also LIBEL, SLANDER New York Times Company v. Sullivan in the IMPORTANT CASES section —compare DISPARAGEMENT, FALSE LIGHT, SLANDER OF TITLE
2 : a defamatory communication defamation is a publication —W. L. Prosser and W. Pacific Reporter Keeton>
Defamation of character also includes a standard of harm. First, as Science Rules points out, you must be identifiable- here you are posting anonymously, therefore no harm is done to your actual reputation. You must also demonstrate that the libel has done significant material harm to you. Calling someone a name is not enough. There is a line between freedom of speech and defamation that must be respected. Unless you can demonstrate that anything posted here has done you material and significant harm, you have no case.
formerly really

San Pedro, CA

#5472 Aug 3, 2009
GodisAnEyeball wrote:
<quoted text>
You must just like ignorance.
There is a new set of laws regarding the net.
Look them up sometime.
And those laws are LIBEL. Not SLANDER. Slander is spoken. Libel is written.
formerly really

San Pedro, CA

#5473 Aug 3, 2009
ScienceRules wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently your ignorance of the law exceeds your ignorance of science. For defamation of character to occur, whether through libel or slander, there needs to be a victim, an actual identified individual person or entity. Since you are anonymous here on topix, nothing said about your screen identity can rise to defamation of character because your screen persona isn't 'you'. A good analogy would be slandering a fictional character on a TV show; the real actor would have no claim to defamation of character. Now, if you chose to reveal your actual identify here on topix, then defamation of character could be an issue.
Do you bother to research ANYTHING before you post?
No, he doesn't. He thinks that the merest gloss of knowlegde of the subject makes him an expert.

“Hello homo sapiens sapiens.”

Since: Mar 07

A galaxy near you.

#5474 Aug 4, 2009
formerly really wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he doesn't. He thinks that the merest gloss of knowlegde of the subject makes him an expert.
Oh dear, which personality disorder is that? I must look it up. I have a step-brother-in-law who is exactly the same way. He never could understand why he couldn't start at the top instead of working his way up there. Hmmmm....maybe that's why he's doing life in prison.......

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#5475 Aug 4, 2009
DebJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear, which personality disorder is that? I must look it up. I have a step-brother-in-law who is exactly the same way. He never could understand why he couldn't start at the top instead of working his way up there. Hmmmm....maybe that's why he's doing life in prison.......
Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect...that the least competent are the most likely to overestimate their competence.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evidence for God! 5 min scaritual 44
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 59 min Dave Nelson 230,977
Heaven 2 hr _Bad Company 43
Our world came from nothing? 5 hr Carchar king 1,104
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 7 hr fadu singh 23,043
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 14 hr Hooogle It 77
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Thu Ooogah Boogah 14,391

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE