Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Full story: The Star Press 11,175

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Full Story

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10342 Jan 5, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
REALLY1?! THAT is the very BEST you can do?
Not very impressive.
You see, they cannot provide evidence to support their religious insanity, so they must project this lack of evidence onto anything that opposes their mythology. Notice how they never once even tried to show any solid evidence but whenever asked for it they always turn it back to "evolution is a lie?" When the position is indefensible, the common tactic of the believer is to deflect.
KJV

United States

#10343 Jan 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<,
I have shown that you refuse to start at the beginning. Zero. You have no proof for you to jump to a 1:1. There is no proof of the Big Bang only supporting evidence hence your still at zero.
There is no proof and no evidence of spontaneous life, again you're still at zero.
There is no proof of the theory of evolution. Again you're still at zero.

Now what was it that gets you off the zero?

http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulf...

"Hence, the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 105."
KJV

United States

#10344 Jan 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Your book can't even get right the 'prophesy' at the heart of its myth: that Jesus was born of a virgin. The *original*'prophesy' did not mention a virgin, but only a 'young woman'. Furthermore, taken in context, that 'prophesy' was predicting the birth of the prophet's own son.

Show *any* actual prophesy that is unambiguous, precise and was made before the events it prophesied. You can't show one. All are vague 'feet of clay' prophesies that can be twisted for any events you wish or were made after the fact and written as if they happened before.
Thank you but I must inform you I did not write the Bible.
I sense frustration on your part. What you don't like being held to the facts?
You would love to jump science to change their theory's to facts so you can prove me wrong. To bad they are stuck at theory's because they are not facts.
KJV

United States

#10345 Jan 5, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Here's that post of mine you're referring to. It was a good one - thanks for giving me an opportunity to share it with you again.

Khatru wrote, "
Christianity has a habit of getting into bed with whoever is in power. Witness it's migration over the centuries from Rome through Europe and then on to America.

Now the world's centre of gravity has moved to Beijing and Christianity will soon be abandoning America and trying to muscle in on China. That will be its undoing as the vast majority of Chinese view Christianity as a tool of the west. The Chinese ancestor religion is deeply established and the Chinese love their culture and history in ways that we in the west struggle to grasp.

The future belongs to the Chinese and the world they will shape will be decidedly different from the one that's been shaped by western influences and that includes Christianity.
"

By the way, in the unlikely event of me being wrong, I'm the first to admit it. See my previous post for an example of that.
"in the unlikely event of me being wrong, I'm the first to admit it. "

Then your post should all be posted with a retraction. Oh well another atheist lie.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10346 Jan 5, 2013
Still unable to answer the question? Yet your own bible demands you always be prepared to answer this.

So yet again cowardly half wit.

Why should anyone accept god as anything more than the product of someone's vivid imagination?
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
oogah boogah / the serpent was right / Septic / bobby
And more.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10347 Jan 5, 2013
I love how that simple question makes the godbots cringe in fear and scamper away refusing to answer it even though their own bible demands they answer this.

Lol!
KJV

United States

#10348 Jan 5, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>Right, it is so improbable that nature did it over billions of years with natural processes and natural laws, that it must be that "Gawd dunnit with MAGIC" ... yah uh huh! that's logical <NOT!>
Mathematically you're correct.
It could not have happened the way science claims. The odds pretty much proving the bible is the correct answer.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10349 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I have shown that you refuse to start at the beginning. Zero. You have no proof for you to jump to a 1:1. There is no proof of the Big Bang only supporting evidence hence your still at zero.
There is no proof and no evidence of spontaneous life, again you're still at zero.
There is no proof of the theory of evolution. Again you're still at zero.
Now what was it that gets you off the zero?
http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulf...
"Hence, the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 105."
Well, evidence is better than no evidence. We have evidence, you have none. We're still way ahead of you.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10350 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Mathematically you're correct.
It could not have happened the way science claims. The odds pretty much proving the bible is the correct answer.
The "odds?" Probability demonstrates no such thing.
KJV

United States

#10351 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>So many assumptions. It wasn't "one," and likely it occurred in many locations. The chemicals needed for the protocells are also food for life today, so how do you propose that a new non-evolved life survive when everything around it eats it?
Oh I see new life is spontaneous starting all over just that they are getting eaten each time one pops forth.

And you claim it was not one speck of life but life was popping up all over the earth at the same time. And yet this post was to an atheist that claims all live on earth has been traced back to one life source. So why didn't your other spontaneous life forms reproduce?

You've heard of circular reasoning well KK is circular digging her self a hole she can't climb out of.
KJV

United States

#10352 Jan 5, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>The conditions had to be other than they are now for life to form. Earth did not get "better and better" for life, life evolved to fit the changes on Earth, particularly those changes induced by life itself (Oxygen rich atmosphere). During the time the Earth had the right conditions for spontaneous life generation, multiple forms likely DID generate. The most successful one then ATE all the others. So you are incorrect, the Goo Pool generated several life forms in all likelihood. The most successful one ate the rest and then evolution commenced.
KJV wrote, "
Why is all life related on earth and not a second life form, so to say a second blood line from a second original life form?
Why is that?"

This is not correct at all either. Let's go with "blood line" as a concept. Many Mollusks have copper based blood chemistry, not iron as ours is. There is your "second" "blood" line.
KJV wrote, "
Do the math either life is not that special
And we should have by now seen a second very alien type of life. Or life is very very special and to think all this came from one speck of life is ludicrous. "

Life ain't all that special. We see life emerging in all kinds of environments that would be hostile to most others, under the Antarctic ice, on deep sea thermal vents, at the bottom of the deepest trenches in the ocean.
One speck would be all it would take.
Dude you are the one that said all life on earth can be trace back to a single life form. When your called on that you change your mind and do it by trying to make it look like it was my idea.

"Life ain't all that special."

Really? Better go tell NASA about that because they are spending billions upon billions look for it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10353 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I see new life is spontaneous starting all over just that they are getting eaten each time one pops forth.
And you claim it was not one speck of life but life was popping up all over the earth at the same time. And yet this post was to an atheist that claims all live on earth has been traced back to one life source. So why didn't your other spontaneous life forms reproduce?
You've heard of circular reasoning well KK is circular digging her self a hole she can't climb out of.
You like to skip steps in everything, this particular time it's actually another of your strawmen. I said the chemicals required for the formations of protocells, the ones that can become life according to our understanding of it, are consumed by modern life forms. Thus, the chemicals themselves are consumed before forming any protocells. No protocells, no life.
KJV

United States

#10354 Jan 5, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>What's the point?

After all, you say that "they" amend the Bible whenever a new document is found.
You didn't know that?
Wow your list of uneducated just keeps growing.
KJV

United States

#10355 Jan 5, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>No, I don't have to start with zero here, that's just you lack of understanding.

But you said to use mathematical probability. Based on probability theory there is a 100% chance that life will exist in every universe and on every planet where it is possible for life to exist.

Moving the goal post doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and you do not understand probability theory.
"No, I don't have to start with zero here, that's just you lack of understanding."

Yes you would if you were intent on find the truth. Where is your proof to use the 1:1?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10356 Jan 5, 2013
But the massive tit Dik4cm thought jesus wanted to complain about me...
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Derek even posts links that actually counter his argument, he and Maz are probably twins ... or socks.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10357 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>"No, I don't have to start with zero here, that's just you lack of understanding."

Yes you would if you were intent on find the truth. Where is your proof to use the 1:1?
Here we are.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10358 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude you are the one that said all life on earth can be trace back to a single life form. When your called on that you change your mind and do it by trying to make it look like it was my idea.
"Life ain't all that special."
Really? Better go tell NASA about that because they are spending billions upon billions look for it.
I did not change my mind on this. All life on earth can be traced back to the single life form that ate all the others. Please try to pay attention.

NASA is spending billions to look for it on other planets because there is nothing so special about it that it could not have formed there as well.

Dumbazz!!
KJV

United States

#10359 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>I studied it when I was young, everything in there was stated after the fact. End of story.
Liar

Totally wrong.

http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/Articles/19...

Last Updated: 06/03/2012 00:14
These 10 Bible prophecies were fulfilled in 1948 when Israel became an independent, united nation for the second time in history, and for the first time in 2,900 years.© 100 Prophecies
KJV

United States

#10360 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yet we can find references to support everything we say. Just because you deny the stuff you don't like, doesn't make us wrong.
You can lie all you want and live that lie.
Who cares.
KJV

United States

#10361 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>It was a dying sun that made our planet possible. Our sun, Sol, is constantly changing, it's cooking elements, creating heavier ones. Oceanic salinity changes quite a bit. The axis of the Earth is always changing. Our weather changes, our climate changes, the stars' positions change. Our moon is receding from the Earth, tides are changing, tides are change. We survive in spite of these changes, that's why our species didn't die off before learning to refine our skills.
Are you really going to try and defend the earlier post?

"Not changing is always bad"

Really sticking with that.
Good for you going down with ship.
Bye bye.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 21 min NightSerf 1,013
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 28 min Aura Mytha 231,908
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 6 hr thetruth 14,445
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 6 hr thetruth 25
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 10 hr Catholic Girl 27
Why the Internet is slowly strangling religion 21 hr Dally Mama 3
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow 21 hr Carchar king 4

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE