Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do not want a discussion, you want adherents. That's why you ascribe motives to others in order to control the conversations.
I'm not going to fight to ask the questions I have and I shouldn't have to, if they are not welcome so be it.
do give up grab, don't ever give up.
The most valid interpretation of the data is that whatever we are in is not their omni-god and it is not 'deny everything". both of those stances are not based on reality.
I can give you a calculation and a measurement that shows the system we are in is better described as "life" as opposed to non-life. to witch the milli/fundy mentals wet their pee-jays. lmao,
You can take it to as many people as you want. I prefer you take it to college science professors, but any will do. record what they say.
yeah, faith based denial that we are best described as in a system of life?
what was it you said that day?
oh yeah, 'due to my atheism I have to answer no."
lmao, due to my "blind faith atheism" I have to deny valid science.
lmao, rotf lmao.
What valid science are atheists supposedly denying?
Is this science promoted by the majority of the scientific community? And before you answer, I'm not asking if they promote the bits and pieces of presumed fact that comprise your evidence. I'm asking if they support your conclusions.
Because I'm willing to bet that your conclusion is not supported and therefore there is no real science for atheists to even deny. Your accusation becomes the same accusation that many apologists make: "You don't believe in my junk science so you, not we, are the ones denying science!"
Plus, I see people all the time in the field of history who get their facts 100% correct, but their interpretation of those facts and correctly identifying what those facts mean end up 100% wrong.
If it happens in history, there's no doubt it happens in science, too.
The most valid interpretation of the data is that whatever we are in is not their omni-god and it is not 'deny everything". both of those stances are not based on reality.
I can give you a calculation and a measurement that shows the system we are in is better described as "life" as opposed to non-life. to witch the milli/fundy mentals wet their pee-jays. lmao,
You can take it to as many people as you want. I prefer you take it to college science professors, but any will do. record what they say.
I can't continue to tolerate the negative energy and some these people have been at it since before I was born.
They are looking for adherents not discussions. Anyway, I'm okay with exploring solo.
You can take it to as many people as you want. I prefer you take it to college science professors, but any will do. record what they say.
That's up to you to do.
It's not up to us to do your legwork.
Nor can you sit there and make assertions and then claim they're true until proven false.
Science doesn't work that way.
If you think you have the right of things, then submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal so real scientists can take a crack at your hypothesis. And yes, anyone can submit a paper to a journel - no special creditials are required.
But to post your assertions on a forum and then demand that, not only should we all believe what you say, but that we have to do all the work disproving your hypothesis or else it's true is not the way real science works.
You can't just cobble together a string of random facts that happen to be both true and which conform to your beliefs. That's how conspiracy theories take shape - insert a few true facts and make up the rest of it.
You offer zero evidence here, ZERO. And, I never mentioned scripture or a specific religion.
Gee whiz, then, jimmiej - now you know how we atheists feel each and every time a creationist of any kind makes claims about how there must be a creator.
A creator/mover is the only logical conclusion, at this point. Science cannot tell us how life began.
Life began. Knowing how it began has absolutely nothing to do with living a good, moral life. Why do you keep harping on how life began when nobody has any clear, concrete answers? Does it make your life different?
Nor can you sit there and make assertions and then claim they're true until proven false.
Science doesn't work that way.
If you think you have the right of things, then submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal so real scientists can take a crack at your hypothesis. And yes, anyone can submit a paper to a journel - no special creditials are required.
But to post your assertions on a forum and then demand that, not only should we all believe what you say, but that we have to do all the work disproving your hypothesis or else it's true is not the way real science works.
You can't just cobble together a string of random facts that happen to be both true and which conform to your beliefs. That's how conspiracy theories take shape - insert a few true facts and make up the rest of it.
shira, I dare you to take my "string of facts" to trained people.
you don't have to, but then don't push a less valid claim on me like its real because you didn't do your homework. i can get that from theist.
btw, my conclusions are taken only from published papers and college textbooks.
You offer zero evidence here, ZERO. And, I never mentioned scripture or a specific religion.
Because I'm addressing your method of arguing. The evidence was in previous posts -which you apparently see fit to ignore. And religion or irreligion is irrelevant when the claim of a creator god is being posited. You are clearly wriggling, here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
I can't continue to tolerate the negative energy and some these people have been at it since before I was born.
They are looking for adherents not discussions. Anyway, I'm okay with exploring solo.
You can't bear being called on irrational faith -claims and finding that you have nothing. So you are doing the good old Flounce -off with some old hat accusation of bias and saying that we've been at it a long time Well, I've been doing it since "Who moved the stone" threw down the gauntlet to doubters, but religious (particularly Christian) propaganda has been going long before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
You do not want a discussion, you want adherents. That's why you ascribe motives to others in order to control the conversations.
It still sounds ad though you are trying to find a way of escaping while telling yourself you got the last word. I'd be happy to have a discussion, but you are avoiding it and preferring accusations about my motives. Of course I'd like to persuade people I was on the right lines. don't you?
Quote:
I'm not going to fight to ask the questions I have and I shouldn't have to, if they are not welcome so be it.
So be it, indeed. You wouldn't be the first one who finds their usual apologetics don't work to run away crying 'foul' or 'bias'. And 'you shouldn't have to?' What then? You expect us to accept whatever faith -claims you plonk down without anyone calling you on them? The days when theism could expect to get away with that are long gone.
For my part, I am happy to put my case (or ours) and let the browsers see who has the best one. It's why we baby -baking Satanspawn rule in R/S as well as A/A.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-16-2018 at 01:48 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A creator/mover is the only logical conclusion, at this point. Science cannot tell us how life began.
Well, I've been doing it since "Who moved the stone" threw down the gauntlet to doubters, but religious (particularly Christian) propaganda has been going long before that. 
What then? You expect us to accept whatever faith -claims you plonk down without anyone calling you on them? The days when theism could expect to get away with that are long gone.
