Athiests as dumb as Evangelical Christians.

[limb]

and all them militant intellectual athiests no matter how many hundreds of pages you write you're not going to prove that God doesn't exist because if he is God he could have made it so he's unprovable.

i think he's actually satan and he made believe he's somewhat of a good god.
and we all should admit that. or at least semi-admit

well yeah exactly he could be satan or a cloud of pigeons or the weird alien artifact thing from 2001, you just don't know.

[limb]

I don't like Dawkins and all them militant intellectual athiests no matter how many hundreds of pages you write you're not going to prove that God doesn't exist because if he is God he could have made it so he's unprovable.

What do you mean by "militant"? He presents documentaries and writes books. He sometimes gives lectures. Even the Swiss wouldn't find that militant.

His job at Oxford is to improve public understanding of science. Clearly religious nonsense gets in the way of that, and an awful lot of people are religious, so he needs to dedicate a fair bit of time to the topic.

But the key group is those who aren't sure. Seeing religion so systematically taken to pieces should sway them. There's even a section on his forum where believers come to say they've converted to atheism.

We all know that you can't DISprove many things, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be backlash against those who try to pass them off as the truth. Not all theories are equal.

I just don't like him and his methods personally, I'm an atheist raised a catholic, I came to my own conclusions like everybody does. He's too preachy, I probably don't like preachers because I went to church every Sunday until I was about thirteen. I wouldn't stop him from doing his thing though, it just rubs me the wrong way.

[phase 2]

I just don't like him and his methods personally, I'm an atheist raised a catholic, I came to my own conclusions like everybody does. He's too preachy, I probably don't like preachers because I went to church every Sunday until I was about thirteen. I wouldn't stop him from doing his thing though, it just rubs me the wrong way.

hehe... it's funny how differently something can be interpreted. When I first discovered him I was almost high-fiving the television. It was great to see somebody not afraid to tell it like it is.

I can't help but feel people are using "rules" created by religion as if they're to be accepted. All this "beliefs can't be challenged" nonsense is accepted by society, when the opposite should be true. You can't hide behind the "that's just my belief" line. The fact Dawkins ignores this defence is what seems to upset people, as even the non-religious have been programmed into accepting it.

[alien pimp]

and all them militant intellectual athiests no matter how many hundreds of pages you write you're not going to prove that God doesn't exist because if he is God he could have made it so he's unprovable.

i think he's actually satan and he made believe he's somewhat of a good god.
and we all should admit that. or at least semi-admit

well yeah exactly he could be satan or a cloud of pigeons or the weird alien artifact thing from 2001, you just don't know.

of course we don't know, there isn't even a commonly accepted definition for god as it is for electricity eg
there's at least as many gods as people
but mine can beat yours with one hand tied to his own balls
blah

[hurlingdervish]

there's at least as many gods as people
but mine can beat yours with one hand tied to his own balls
blah

my god is bigger than yours.

[parson]

darwin was not very bright and ended up being part of a izan breeding program

survival of the fittest is a huge huge lie

nature is not a contest. there is no one species trying to get to the top of the pile (except for the retarded naked apes)

panspermia is the emerging theory that will eventually replace darwinism once the sizan quit educating the west.

[cityzen]

survival of the fittest is a huge huge lie

nature is not a contest. there is no one species trying to get to the top of the pile (except for the retarded naked apes)

Are you not misinterpreting the theory of evolution?

[parson]

no i'm correcting other people's misinterpretations

[hurlingdervish]

if people did not evolve why do burly guys have back hair?

facial hair?

panspermia still does not rule out evolution because once the "seeds" were "planted" they would have to evolve somehow into their current form

two mammals in the desert , one black, one tan. the tan one will survive....theres nothing mysterious about that

[parson]

i never said there was no evolution

i said survival of the fittest is a bad way of describing what actually happens.

[parson]

dbl

[parson]

survival of the fittest fails to take into account the profound tendency towards balance.

every tick has a tack. every knob has a knob-slobberer.

[limb]

survival of the fittest fails to take into account the profound tendency towards balance.

every tick has a tack. every knob has a knob-slobberer.

There isn't a tendancy towards balance, things are constantly changing, just really slowly.

[hurlingdervish]

the balance is in the skills they develop; they don't just happen because of genetics. those genetics took millions of years of survival for a bunny rabbit to be white, hop fast, and fuck enough to be around in a hundred years

the fox has to have keen eyesight in the winter and the speed to catch the rabbit, that happens because the ones without speed or great sight don't get to live long enough to breed

[cityzen]

i never said there was no evolution

i said survival of the fittest is a bad way of describing what actually happens.

Why is that? The one that is fit to survive it's environment survives, while the unfit doesn't, hence "Survival of the fittest".

[the acid never lies]

Let's have that again

We all know that you can't DISprove many things, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be backlash against those who try to pass them off as the truth. Not all theories are equal.

[parson]

i never said there was no evolution

i said survival of the fittest is a bad way of describing what actually happens.

Why is that? The one that is fit to survive it's environment survives, while the unfit doesn't, hence "Survival of the fittest".

its like in that movie Adaptation. they found a flower that was too deep to be pollenated by any known moth. so they were saying it was some kind of impossible anomaly. and this dude was like duh of course there's a bug thats gonna fit right in there. and they looked and looked and eventually found a bug with a perfectly sized proboscis for that single flower.

there is a balance that is fundamental and observable from every perspective in nature except for humans who think it is a a contest and have no qualms with wiping out everything.

[parson]

wolves don't wipe out a flock of sheep. they take one and let the rest go on about their lives. they also don't kill off all the other wolves for fear of not getting enough.

[hurlingdervish]

wolves don't wipe out a flock of sheep. they take one and let the rest go on about their lives. they also don't kill off all the other wolves for fear of not getting enough.

if they had hands to carry the extra meat they might kill the flock, and they do fight over individual catches and who gets to eat what part of the animal

you can't compare humans to packs of wolves though, we separated ourselves from nature a LONG time ago

[parson]

i'm just tellin ya