There's probably no God

Jan 17, 2009 Read more: Canada.com 10,130
Atheists have started advertising. The most talked about ad campaign in England, now plastered across the outside of 800 British buses, declares: "There's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life." The campaign opened last week with rousing speeches by Richard Dawkins and representatives of the British Humanist Association, after a ... Read more

“If you say it, back it up”

Since: Jan 08

Ocoee, FL

#4850 Jul 25, 2009
Past Paradisian wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Michael, I am not a scientist on evolution, so what ever I could possibly say to you could be found on the internet. My OPINION however, gives the goddess some credit. Just as christians give their god credit. The difference to me the the amount of credit given. I believe (this is a personal belief) that the goddess merely nuged things along a bit. Whereas christians give god ALL the credit - even the parts that are routinely taught in school.(if that makes sense??)
Now, the huge gaps in the fossil records......I believe that it's out there, just hasn't been found yet. It was billions of years ago.....most likely, buried VERY deep somewhere. Of course, it could have been obliterated by something else...meteors, etc...??
Now you probably think me a total nut case.....
My apologies. I should have guessed as much since you are actually nice. ;-)

And another "duh" on my assumption that you are an atheist. I should have notice your symbol.
Easter Bunny

Arroyo Seco, NM

#4851 Jul 25, 2009
bacord wrote:
After almost 5000 pages aren't you a little tired
of this nobody will change or can change anyone else
SUCCESS! That's the point. We're here to make it clear that we cannot be talked or shamed into some baseless superstitions.

“If you say it, back it up”

Since: Jan 08

Ocoee, FL

#4852 Jul 25, 2009
Easter Bunny wrote:
<quoted text>
Playing nice? Insisting that we seriously consider that all the conspicuous lies and horrible stories of the bible are literally true, and you call that playing nice? Or maybe just the ridiculous superstitions that pass your independent measure?
Oh, and where did that measuring system come from? How is it that you can pass judgment on the word of the creator of the universe? Or how is it that you are qualified to determine which statements in the bible are the word of god and which are not?
By whatever justification you have for making such judgments, we too have measured the bible. The only difference is that we have concluded that in all significant ways, it is a horror show.
And beyond that, I'd love to hear you explain away the coincidence of adopting the religion of your surroundings instead of one from some distant shore. Are we to believe that you were just lucky that you were raised around a bunch of people who knew the truth despite your upbringing as an atheist?
Nah, this one is too angry....and hasn't even read my posts. Haven't even mentioned the Bible. Pass....
Easter Bunny

Arroyo Seco, NM

#4853 Jul 25, 2009
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
To explain this principle scientist have to dabble in junk science. They have to theorize countless other universes in which this principle does not hold. They have no more to hang their hat on than theists.
Now how does the anthropic principle explain "away a lot of superstitious nonsense that fundies like to use to muddy the waters for simple minds?"
Oh, I can answer your question, but that would be pointless until I hear how you came to the idea that it somehow relies on some theorists' speculations about other universes.

“If you say it, back it up”

Since: Jan 08

Ocoee, FL

#4854 Jul 25, 2009
nina wrote:
<quoted text>
because evolution isn't a debate,
the evidence for it is overwhelming
the reason there's no point to publicly debate the IDers, is because their whole premise is based on applying the wrong meaning to words, selectively quoting scientists to reverse their actual meaning, and misrepresenting science generally.
and, at the same time, positing that one whole or unexplained thing in evolution does mean throw it out and replace it with god
while providing zero evidence, research, papers or anything to support their position
because there isn't anything to support their position
and it's done even more dishonestly by pretending it's not xtianity, when they are not willing to consider the creation myths of any other religion
creation science isn't science at all
it's not testable, it's not unsearchable, it's not observable
believers don't know how to debate
if Ben Stein wanted to have a serious debate, then his propaganda film was not the way to have it.
he misrepresented the whole ID paper in the journal story, he edited the science interviews out of context and generally did exactly what IDers always do - misrepresent and misinform
short answer: because a discussion it outside of the realm of believers
btw, I also consider Michael Moore to be a propagandist, not a documentary filmmaker
Not debatable? Yet Dawkins himself participates in debates. Hmmmm....

In terms of Ben Stein's propaganda, what do you propose his "end game" is?

“If you say it, back it up”

Since: Jan 08

Ocoee, FL

#4855 Jul 25, 2009
Sorry if I missed others. Just snuck away real quick. Off to play Trouble with my wife and son.

Until tomorrow. Have a blessed....er...good night.
Easter Bunny

Arroyo Seco, NM

#4856 Jul 25, 2009
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has come no closer to saying that there is probably no God; from what I am seeing from them lately, they are coming closer to saying there is a high probability there is a God. Don't write the theists off just yet; time will tell were truth shall lie.
That's your spin on it. Scientists in general don't seem to give a sh*t about religion.

But we really don't need any additional time to know that almost everything written in the bible is a combination of lies and nonsense.
Easter Bunny

Arroyo Seco, NM

#4857 Jul 25, 2009
Michael in Ocoee wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, this one is too angry....and hasn't even read my posts. Haven't even mentioned the Bible. Pass....
It's pretty obvious that I did read your posts, and that you are unable to deal with any of my counter-points. Better to walk away while you can still convince yourself that you beliefs are sensible.

Or, hang around and answer just one question: What is the mechanism by which you determine which tenets of christianity to be unacceptable?
Easter Bunny

Arroyo Seco, NM

#4858 Jul 25, 2009
Michael in Ocoee wrote:
<quoted text>
I are Ivy League Educated, by the way. Same school as Prof. Carl Sagan. But nice try.:-)
Still not understanding the insults.
Which makes your demonstrated lack of comprehension at least mildly surprising, but the incoherence of your replies is another matter entirely.
Easter Bunny

Arroyo Seco, NM

#4859 Jul 25, 2009
Second Coming of Dave D wrote:
<quoted text>
I find this to be an excellent example of how Dawkins uses irony to make his point.
Of course, being semi-literate, the irony eludes you.
Dawkins wasn't saying that aliens seeded Earth; he was saying that that is as plausible as saying that the Christian God is the Intelligent Designer.
Read Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" and you'll see that I'm right.
Dawkins was demolishing the concept that if evolution isn't real, then the only other explanation is an Intelligent Designer.
So, Dawkins is saying, fine. Maybe there IS a Designer. But if there is, then why is the ONLY possibility the one that claims that the Designer is the Christian God?
There is just as much chance that aliens seeded Earth as there is that the Christian God created Adam from dust.
In other words, it's highly unlikely.
Yes, you've really spelled out how he was misrepresenting Dawkins. Now we'll get to see if his comprehension skills are sufficient to get the point.
Easter Bunny

Arroyo Seco, NM

#4860 Jul 25, 2009
... and we'll also get to see if his level of honesty is sufficient to admit it.
Dorothy

AOL

#4861 Jul 25, 2009
So, if there is a creator, then who is the creator of god?????????? Did he spring up out of the mold??????????
Dorothy

AOL

#4862 Jul 25, 2009
If god did create us, we can consider ourselves camparable to a ant farm. Just a different scale, uncomprehensible to us.

Since: Jan 09

Markham, IL

#4863 Jul 25, 2009
Michael in Ocoee wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, maybe I am mistaken. I thought the prevailing premise was that we initially reproduced through mutation? Am I incorrect? I very well could be.
Yes, I believe you are mistaken. I'm note even sure what you mean by reproducing through mutation. That doesn't relate in any way to either mutation or reproduction. Reproduction can *lead* to small and large mutations, but mutation can never *be* reproduction.
Or do are you referring to cell division when you say mutation? That is how the very very very first life reproduced.
Michael in Ocoee wrote:
<quoted text>I am far from an expert.
How then, did we arrive where we are now in our reproductive process?
In terms of undeniable intermediary fossils, can you provide me an example of an undisputed fossil that is part one species and part another?
Another fallible question: evolution doesn't say that one species "splits" into two. It says that many animals have common ancestors, who may have had *traits* of two current but distinct species. In some cases, those animals have gone extinct. Others still live.
Michael in Ocoee wrote:
<quoted text>Again, maybe I am mistaken. I was under the impression there were none. Can you provide an example?
Megaleledone setebos is the common ancestor of all octopus species, and continues to live. Other fossils of extinct crustaceans also shared DNA with modern octopi.
Paul WV

United States

#4864 Jul 25, 2009
Easter Bunny wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I can answer your question, but that would be pointless until I hear how you came to the idea that it somehow relies on some theorists' speculations about other universes.
The Anthropic Principle puts man back at the center of the universe in that if the fundamental constants were changed only slightly man would not be here. Now in order to explain this highly improbable coincidence, theorist must speculate that we are in just one of countless universes and we just happen to be in the one favorable for human life to have evolved.
Paul WV

United States

#4865 Jul 25, 2009
Easter Bunny wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your spin on it. Scientists in general don't seem to give a sh*t about religion.
But we really don't need any additional time to know that almost everything written in the bible is a combination of lies and nonsense.
What's the Bible got to do with whether there is a God or not. Since when did scientist start using the Bible for proof?

“Is that necessary?”

Since: Feb 09

Where I was born

#4866 Jul 25, 2009
ScienceRules wrote:
When the fundies raise these ridiculous questions over and over it is best to ignore them.
Now we have the newest contestant with his version of "show me a half-banana and half giraffe".("..... can you provide me an example of an undisputed fossil that is part one species and part another? ")
We have explained this so many times that you know this is just the latest fundie troll with no interest in dialog. Starvation time!
Thanks for the reminder. Sometimes when you see something as pathetic as they are, you tend to forget..

“Is that necessary?”

Since: Feb 09

Where I was born

#4867 Jul 25, 2009
Michael in Ocoee wrote:
<quoted text>
I am practically BEGGING for dialog, SR!!! No one will endulge me.
You apparently missed the sign on the door. You've seen their equal on carnival rides... "Must be 'this tall' to ride this ride."? This one says that you must be 'this smart' to engage in "dialog". And you have come up short.
Paul WV

United States

#4868 Jul 25, 2009
Easter Bunny wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your spin on it. Scientists in general don't seem to give a sh*t about religion.
But we really don't need any additional time to know that almost everything written in the bible is a combination of lies and nonsense.
Some day, scientists may well be confronted with a another Boltzmann type Paradox that can only be answered with there being nearly a 100% probability there is a God. And if man is around on earth long enough he may one day say it is proven: there is a God.

“Is that necessary?”

Since: Feb 09

Where I was born

#4869 Jul 25, 2009
kjerstie001 wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot about teddy ruxpin that is sitting on my shelf..........
It's ok though..teddy says he still loves you, and won't send you to the mudblups for all eternity.
*PHEW* Glad to hear that one.

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
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 28 min nanoanomaly 10
News Confessions of a black atheist 35 min UruEuWauWau 305
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 43 min Aura Mytha 237,672
News Barney Frank Advises Politicians to Stay in the... 45 min nanoanomaly 14
Atheist-Scientist talks about incest. 53 min nanoanomaly 5
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 18,438
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 2 hr Patrick n Angela 14,548
More from around the web