Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,979

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Full Story

Since: Feb 12

Taipei, Taiwan

#67641 Feb 6, 2013
John wrote:
Your nothing reeks of bigotry and nonsense.
You do know religious history is that right? I mean, the crusades is basically a racial take over of the holy lands by white Europeans which they lost. The persecution because of different faiths. I can go on and on you know.

Know about religion before you make an ass of urself.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67642 Feb 6, 2013
StarsplashTaiwan wrote:
<quoted text>You guys dont have evidence either. Saying god did it isn't evidence. You religious turds really need to stop using that as an argument.

Well, aren't you doing the same thing John? You guys are trying to convince us that we are wrong and that we should believe in the make-believe Bullshit that you guys say no matter what even when there is no support or evidence to support anything you clowns say. So exactly how much hypocracy do you want to bring to the table?
Hey settle down there jack.
We don't want you to believe in God
Use your head! If you did that we would then be stuck with you for an entirety.
None of us wants that. No you please go on your way.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67643 Feb 6, 2013
StarsplashTaiwan wrote:
<quoted text>You do know religious history is that right? I mean, the crusades is basically a racial take over of the holy lands by white Europeans which they lost. The persecution because of different faiths. I can go on and on you know.

Know about religion before you make an ass of urself.
" I can go on and on you know."
Seems like you have already.

You're just a rubber stamp, you bring nothing to the discussion that hasn't been heard a thousand time on here.

Now go away and next time you pipe up on here let's see if you can actually come up with something you've not read your buddy posting a thousand times before.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#67645 Feb 6, 2013
I don't think the larger dinosaurs would've been too nimble in wooded areas. We could destroy their large eggs with rocks thrown from trees. We could use fire. We could work at night in cold when dinosaurs would be slow.

It just needs concerted cunning to wipe out a species, not guns or bombs.
StarsplashTaiwan wrote:
<quoted text>
With what? rocks and sticks?
They didn't have machine guns or bombs back then.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67646 Feb 7, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't want you to believe in God
Then f*ck off an stop posting creationist lies.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67647 Feb 7, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're nut!
This is coming form the guy who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and that fossils aren't really there...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#67648 Feb 7, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Then f*ck off an stop posting creationist lies.
What's the alternative? Let's look at the atheist's favorite fairy tale, Darwin's brainstorm, called the theory of evolution. Say you're making a giraffe. The necessary mutation would be a long neck for eating leaves. But first the giraffe has to be a pre-giraffe because a long neck isn't going to help a pre-lion who eats meat, or a pre-zebra who eats grass. The long neck mutation is only useful to an animal that already lives under trees, who is already trying to reach higher leaves before the mutation. But wait, if the pre-giraffe couldn't reach the leaves before the mutation, why the freak was it there in the first place? Was it just hanging around wistfully looking up at leaves waiting for a mutation? If this sounds ridiculous, it is! The combination of specific mutation and specific environment is so unlikely that even God couldn't make sense of it. LMAO!

Since: Mar 11

United States

#67649 Feb 7, 2013
The alternative is reason. More and more theists are accepting evolution, only the rejects still refuse to.
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the alternative? Let's look at the atheist's favorite fairy tale, Darwin's brainstorm, called the theory of evolution. Say you're making a giraffe. The necessary mutation would be a long neck for eating leaves. But first the giraffe has to be a pre-giraffe because a long neck isn't going to help a pre-lion who eats meat, or a pre-zebra who eats grass. The long neck mutation is only useful to an animal that already lives under trees, who is already trying to reach higher leaves before the mutation. But wait, if the pre-giraffe couldn't reach the leaves before the mutation, why the freak was it there in the first place? Was it just hanging around wistfully looking up at leaves waiting for a mutation? If this sounds ridiculous, it is! The combination of specific mutation and specific environment is so unlikely that even God couldn't make sense of it. LMAO!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67650 Feb 7, 2013
StarsplashTaiwan wrote:
<quoted text>
With what? rocks and sticks?
They didn't have machine guns or bombs back then.
And yet, humans contributed greatly to the extinction of mammoths, mastodons, giant sloths, and the rest of the megafauna in North America. And yes, that was with sticks and stones.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67651 Feb 7, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You said
"How does this support a creation? if anything, it supports exactly the opposite."
The opposite of creation (intelligent design) I would think would be randomness.
Wrong. The opposite of randomness is order, not design. A salt crystal is very ordered, but it isn't designed: it forms spontaneously under the right conditions. The early universe was ordered (more precisely, it was low entropy) but that says nothing about design. The laws of physics are not 'random': they are very specific (even when all they predict is probabilities) and the early universe was governed by the same laws of physics as today.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67652 Feb 7, 2013
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the alternative? Let's look at the atheist's favorite fairy tale, Darwin's brainstorm, called the theory of evolution. Say you're making a giraffe. The necessary mutation would be a long neck for eating leaves. But first the giraffe has to be a pre-giraffe because a long neck isn't going to help a pre-lion who eats meat, or a pre-zebra who eats grass. The long neck mutation is only useful to an animal that already lives under trees, who is already trying to reach higher leaves before the mutation. But wait, if the pre-giraffe couldn't reach the leaves before the mutation, why the freak was it there in the first place? Was it just hanging around wistfully looking up at leaves waiting for a mutation? If this sounds ridiculous, it is! The combination of specific mutation and specific environment is so unlikely that even God couldn't make sense of it. LMAO!
Why don't creationists ever understand the Archimedian property: if you add a lot of small changes, it gives rise to a large change.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67653 Feb 7, 2013
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the alternative? Let's look at the atheist's favorite fairy tale, Darwin's brainstorm, called the theory of evolution. Say you're making a giraffe. The necessary mutation would be a long neck for eating leaves. But first the giraffe has to be a pre-giraffe because a long neck isn't going to help a pre-lion who eats meat, or a pre-zebra who eats grass. The long neck mutation is only useful to an animal that already lives under trees, who is already trying to reach higher leaves before the mutation. But wait, if the pre-giraffe couldn't reach the leaves before the mutation, why the freak was it there in the first place? Was it just hanging around wistfully looking up at leaves waiting for a mutation? If this sounds ridiculous, it is! The combination of specific mutation and specific environment is so unlikely that even God couldn't make sense of it. LMAO!
Just because you're not smart enough to understand or appreciate the fact of evolution does not mean that everyone has to accomodate your mental illness.

When you've managed to prove your god, then you can talk about science as much as you like. Go and get a DNA test if you seriously doubt darwin.
John

United States

#67654 Feb 7, 2013
Another day of ineptitude from the antitheists.*Note to lurkers* They have gone almost three years without giving one accountable position they are willing to debate. Three years without an example of evidence that meets their criteria for evidence. These are angry agenda driven folks that don't give a damn about the evidence.
If you want to subject yourself to this farce by all means see for yourself. Antitheists you could also just cut and paste one of the 64,900 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True
science that is repeatable and observable.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#67655 Feb 7, 2013
John wrote:
They have gone almost three years without giving one accountable position they are willing to debate.
You are one crazy mofo.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#67656 Feb 7, 2013
John: Poe, mental or both?
John can't be as thick as he appears in his posts, can he?
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You are one crazy mofo.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#67657 Feb 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't creationists ever understand the Archimedian property: if you add a lot of small changes, it gives rise to a large change.
On paper it works, but not in reality. There is no evidence in fossils or experiments that mutations create "new" forms.

The theory of evolution has gone the way of gravity, accepted as an ultimate law, mathematically and physically defined but unresolved into any causes.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#67658 Feb 7, 2013
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the alternative? Let's look at the atheist's favorite fairy tale, Darwin's brainstorm, called the theory of evolution. Say you're making a giraffe. The necessary mutation would be a long neck for eating leaves. But first the giraffe has to be a pre-giraffe because a long neck isn't going to help a pre-lion who eats meat, or a pre-zebra who eats grass. The long neck mutation is only useful to an animal that already lives under trees, who is already trying to reach higher leaves before the mutation. But wait, if the pre-giraffe couldn't reach the leaves before the mutation, why the freak was it there in the first place? Was it just hanging around wistfully looking up at leaves waiting for a mutation? If this sounds ridiculous, it is! The combination of specific mutation and specific environment is so unlikely that even God couldn't make sense of it. LMAO!
Good one!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67659 Feb 7, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
On paper it works, but not in reality. There is no evidence in fossils or experiments that mutations create "new" forms.
Fossils cannot show mutations because they don't preserve DNA. They *do* show that species change over time. Lab experiments *do*show that mutations can 'create' new forms.
The theory of evolution has gone the way of gravity, accepted as an ultimate law, mathematically and physically defined but unresolved into any causes.
It is circular to ask for causes of physical laws.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#67660 Feb 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fossils cannot show mutations because they don't preserve DNA. They *do* show that species change over time. Lab experiments *do*show that mutations can 'create' new forms.
<quoted text>
It is circular to ask for causes of physical laws.
Science knows HOW to some extent, but it doesn't know WHY. The chief "causes" for the orderly evolution of creatures is entirely unknown, which means that science is looking for truth in all the wrong places.

It needs a new superhero to show the way. Stephen Hawkings is a defector. His theories would turn science into another religion. "If the Grand Unification Theory were constructed, then the greatest triumph in human endeavor would be realized. For then we would know the mind of God." - A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking.

The narcissistic Richard Dawkins is too busy debating Christians for the publicity to spend any time filling the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.

No. Science needs a hero with the mythical qualities of a "phoenix" to arise out of the ashes of its dead evolution theory, and explain the production of a blade of grass using natural laws ordained by no intention. A magical feat indeed!

The conundrum for science has always been backasswards thinking. From matter backward into energy rather than from energy forward into matter and form. It places the cart before the horse.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67661 Feb 7, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
On paper it works, but not in reality. There is no evidence in fossils or experiments that mutations create "new" forms.
The theory of evolution has gone the way of gravity, accepted as an ultimate law, mathematically and physically defined but unresolved into any causes.
You're full of sh*t and have no proof of god at the end of the day.

You're trying to sell us morals while lying about god. Good luck trying to convert us to your stupidity.

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min One way or another 14,718
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 2 hr geezerjock 1,263
Really, God? 2 hr geezerjock 1
Is Religion Childish? 2 hr geezerjock 5
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr thetruth 234,703
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 7 hr thetruth 1,502
why? 7 hr thetruth 60
More from around the web