Atheists in the building, lets deal with this

IMO he is just a rude arrogant asshole.

Aw shit, that’s a whole new poll… :face_with_raised_eyebrow: :sunglasses:

Please share even one of those reasons, if you can.

1 Like

@Whitefire13

More recently, the nineteenth century:

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Is the Jewish creature a " golem" a robot? What about Zombies?

And we get these… so do some States

“zombie deer disease” partly because of the symptoms it causes in animals, including stumbling, lack of coordination, drooling, aggression and a lack of fear of people.

The virus eats holes in the deer brain :brain:.

Oh, oooky pooky. Can’t say I eat game meat, not even rabbit. I eat a lot of chicken.By rights I should be 7 feet tall.

Seems one can also catch something nasty from eating human brains. It’s a disease called ‘kuru’

"Kuru is a very rare, incurable and fatal neurodegenerative disorder that was formerly common among the Fore people of Papua New Guinea. Kuru is a form of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) caused by the transmission of abnormally folded proteins (prion proteins), which leads to symptoms such as tremors and loss of coordination from neurodegeneration.

The term kuru derives from the Fore word kuria or guria (“to shake”),[2] due to the body tremors that are a classic symptom of the disease. Kúru itself means “trembling”.[3] It is also known as the “laughing sickness” due to the pathologic bursts of laughter which are a symptom of the disease. It is now widely accepted that kuru was transmitted among members of the Fore tribe of Papua New Guinea via funerary cannibalism. Deceased family members were traditionally cooked and eaten, which was thought to help free the spirit of the dead.[4] Women and children usually consumed the brain, the organ in which infectious prions were most concentrated, thus allowing for transmission of kuru. The disease was therefore more prevalent among women and children."

2 Likes

It’s all good man. As long as we know evolution remains a theory with all so called objective evidence simply subjective. Take that with you anywhere.

All your highlighted grievances tho. Check well, none was directed on a specific person but on a line of thought only. LMAO.

Plus sir, you seem to be tripping over yourself. Saying you don’t subscribe to faith, you’ve misconstrued, and then getting offended I called you faithless, by my definition, even as it wasn’t directed at anyone specifically on that thread?
Well, it’ll do you good to tell you you’re faithless, cause that gives you hope that you’ve not exhausted all possibilities for the security of your soul but you won’t find that in the realm you’ve confined yourself to.

Are you serious? :woman_shrugging:

Oh dear. You really don’t understand the meaning of a scientific theory do you. You seem to be using it to mean hypothesis or proposal, which it is not.

A scientific theory is an explanation for observed facts. Evolution is fact, not an hypothesis .

Going by the standard of your prose, I don’t believe you are incapable of using Google or a hard copy dictionary. Or is it that you simply don’t accept authorities generally accepted,in the general community and in science ? That you will only believe your faith based humbug?

In fact, a theory can be both and hypothesis AND an explanation,as I suspect you are fully aware… Trying to dismiss the theory of evolution as 'just a theory ’ is disingenuous, imo. As a result you have no credibility.

To amuse myself:

1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomenathe wave theory of light

2a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of actionher method is based on the theory that all children want to learn

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all

3a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE

c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subjecttheory of equations

4 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an artmusic theory

5 : abstract thought : SPECULATION

6 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

Other Words from theory

))))))))))))))))))))))))))0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Scientific theory , systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

PS I apologise for calling you a cunt. I am not usually that indiscreet.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

The dumbest howler a creatard can make. Priceless.

An accepted scientific theory is the pinnacle of scientific thought. You’ll be implying scientific laws are superior to scientific theories next. It really is sad that creatards are this ignorant of the most basic scientific methodology and terminology.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.

You can just Google it ffs. PMLMAO etc etc :laughing: :laughing: :roll_eyes:

2 Likes

I’d be proud, if a superstitious religious apologist calls me this. As I always strive to reason rationally, and using blind faith, as religious apologists do, is absurdly irrational.

Hey…hello :wave:

Your perfect god has a memory problem… (maybe it’s because he has no DNA :dna: hahahahaha)

I thought this thread’s purpose was to somehow “deal with atheists” - you put a lot of effort into Evolution Theory (for you, this must be like Evilution) - however SHOULDN’T YOU be “proving” your claims…

Get your ass in gear AND deal with YOUR CLAIM…

REPOSTED so you don’t have to scroll up to the very top… you’re welcome :blush:

There are two common applications of the definition of “theory”. There is the general “theory” which is just basically an idea, it does not have to be supported. The application of “theory” I (and many other atheists) use is the scientific one, where it must be supported by evidence, peer review, and batteries of challenges.

The scientific theory of evolution is well supported, from hard evidence to confirmation from other disciplines, such as genetics and geology.

No, you came out of the gate as an asshole. If you did not like my response, tough. My response was proportional to the level of asshole you portrayed. First impression dude, first impressions.

That I genuinely take as a compliment. I am faithless, I revel in that label, I am proud of it.

Pascal’s Wager. I reject it.

I will have to add another rule when I read any posts in here.

The first is never to have any liquid in my mouth, because uncontrollable laughter can result in it being sprayed out my nostrils. I had to get a new keyboard, it began to stink like curdled cheese.

The new and second rule will be to place a towel or something on my chair so I don’t soil it when I too, PMLMAO.

The life of an atheist in this forum. Place towel on seat, make sure no liquids are in reach. Have a spare towel ready. Make sure no one will be in the washroom during any forum sessions, a shower may be required.

Dirty work, but someone has to do it. :rofl:

1 Like

As long as we know gravity remains a theory, the terms “up” and “down” will remain purely subjective.

No shame in learning so if you’ve got something to teach me, do graciously. But first, verify it. Only for your sake, I googled it, so you wouldn’t be so rash in your ignorance next time. Here.

Look at the definitions above and take a wild guess what I mean when I say evolution is a just a theory, supposition, proposition, which is why it is continually modified with findings.
It seems certain you’re not trained in the scientific method SM, though obviously learned, evidenced in verbosity and loquacity. Might make a good journalist too, wonder your field?
Not that you’re uninformed about the SM but seem yet to apply it to produce standard scientific material else you would understand the justified arguments against the evo rhetoric.
To help you, a theory looks at findings, you wrongly term proof, proposing reasonable explanations, under established principles. However, this is usually subjective and open to modification and critiquing, as there could still be several unknowns, grey areas and more circumspect perspectives. A law, on the other hand, is not open to modification, nor subjected to perspective as it is constant logically deduced by experimentation. Just google all, not some, differences between a theory and a law and quit your huff and puff of more guff. Your 12" will do you no good on this dancefloor, especially not with your draping ball-gown.

When I said you’ve thrown out a mind of your own, understand I really meant no insult but that you let others do your thinking, swallowing unfiltered info. It’s also true of most but on the path to freedom, you need to subject all information to independent scrutiny using logic. I’m certain you’re bright enough for such task, hence my suggestion. If you only try this, you’d see why Darwinian evo doesn’t get “fact” status by “consensus” but until objectively proven.

Is that what religions do?

1 Like

Does it make you feel better with cussing? Very well then. I’m no more guilty than the book I quoted. At least I only called a line of thought what it is and that remains what it is.

The undergirding proof of reality is consciousness from which logic is developed. Learn again, logic projects from intrinsically established realities/axioms to deduced realities based on established laws. There is a self-established reality to develop logic from and not deduced by logic. This is why faith, like matter, cannot be logically determined. It is a self-subsistent reality. A little baby knows mama is real because it’s aware of her not because of systematic deductions. We similarly know the universe is real.
Are there laws to be developed from the materiality of faith? Like in the universe, yes, but these must be patiently learnt and is why the man of faith has many unknowns in that school and even his knowledge is not impeccable. But faith is a self-subsistent substrate to be freely contacted by any who wishes.
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic. The question must be ‘how to contact’. It is not about believing bogus claims but about contacting a tangible substrate. If one weren’t and is busy convincing himself of anything, he is still faithless.

Until you back your claim and that of god being perfection (previous quote) you are full of hot air waving around your “man words” :open_book: blustering about god.

YOU can’t even address the fucking 10 Commandments!

Bullshit! Bullshit! BULLSHIT!!! You cannot back this claim at all! Aside from the telling of the stories of OBE and NDE from MEMORY - where is the evidence? A person claiming alien abduction also uses their MEMORY of the event - does not provide demonstrable proof that the EVENT HAPPENED as it is “remembered and experienced through the person”.

Jesus fuck!