Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

@Frank Apisa,

So far so good.

0 Replies

Quote:

Neologist said: Do you have any words for those who insult God?

Well you JW's insult him on a regular basis so my words for and your chums are-
"GET ON HERE!".. Smile

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/naughty-step_zpseb4d36c1.jpg~original

1 Reply

Quote:

Farmerman said to Herald: When you can present some actual real evidence , instead of merely posting legends and bad attempts at discrediting facts, then maybe youd be ready to be taken seriously

But many of Dawkins "facts" are not facts at all, check this jaw-dropping example about the evolution of the eye-

"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape."
(Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page 146)

In other words he's saying the lens appeared from nowhere out of thin air, ha ha ha ha... Smile

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/spock-laugh_zps7db7ca5f.jpg~original

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

neo wrote:

Do you have any words for those who insult God?

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Well you JW's insult him on a regular basis so my words for and your chums are-
"GET ON HERE!"..

Aren't you the one who despises the earthly home he created for humans?
Aren't you the one who claims he would deliver finite sinners up to infinite punishment?

1 Reply

@neologist,

So much for your resolution not to feed the troll.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

So much for your resolution not to feed the troll.

Yeah; but this isn't the Atheism thread; this is the illogical thread.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Some more examples of the malleability of Christianity

1 Reply

@neologist,

What a hypocrite. He's a troll no matter what thread he trashes, and you feed him everywhere he pops up, so you're trashing the threads, too.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I love the part about Jesus going to central America. The Book of Morons is a hoot. I guess Joseph Smith thought no one new anything about Mexico, so he could get away with that cock-and-bull story.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

OK, I'll get him on one of my own threads.
This one is already illogical to the extreme, anyhow.

0 Replies

Quote:

Neologist said: @RF- Aren't you the one who despises the earthly home he created for humans?
Aren't you the one who claims he would deliver finite sinners up to infinite punishment?

Am I running a sunday school class here?
Learn!-
"Don't love the world or the things in it, otherwise the love of God is not in you" (1 John 2:15-17)
"For we look at things unseen rather than the seen,for the seen are temporary, but the unseen are eternal" (2 Cor 4:18)
"So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable...it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.. flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:42-50)
Jesus said-"Then they will go away to eternal punishment,but the righteous to eternal life" (Matt 25:46)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rennie-blackboard_zpsea5116e4.jpg~original

0 Replies

@Setanta,

we have tickeys to see the show this spring.
Im wearing the white shirt gray ties and secret undies of the Morons

0 Replies

@igm,

All are illogical by some standard.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

try ... but they've NEVER yet been successful

If you think that your carbon dating of the melted lava is the definition of success - think again.
BTW you and your pet are not 'the whole field of science'.
Actually I don't know what Set is doing here on a tread of logic-unreasonables. Perhaps he should attend some master class in personal complexes & overexposed emotions ... as a cause of off-topic & trolling.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

You are too stupid to insult LOL

Dawkins was giving an example of how easily a lens can spontaneously come into existence. He didn't say the lens appeared from nowhere out of "thin air".

Don't be such an idiot, please. You're making me embarrassed for you.

0 Replies

Quote:

JimmyJ said: Dawkins was giving an example of how easily a lens can spontaneously come into existence. He didn't say the lens appeared from nowhere out of "thin air".

He did, look-
"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

As for his "explanation" of flight, he thinks wingless creatures used to hop off the ground or throw themselves out of trees and get splatted until they somehow sprouted wings!-
"Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground ...Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees. (pp. 113–4)

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

you don't read entire dissertations(I believe that you've got a form of ADD as well). You must force yourelf to get it all read and then youll understand that Dawkins was talking about the segmentation of existing tissue to become light sensitive and then become and eyespot with gngli nd then n eye.

Follow the Mollusca and youll understand what he meant .
Stop "quote mining " like gung snake, its insulting a practice

0 Replies

Quote:

Farmerman said: @RF- (re Climbing Mt Imp)- You must force yourelf to get it all read and then youll understand that Dawkins was talking about the segmentation of existing tissue to become light sensitive and then become and eyespot with gngli nd then n eye

I HAVE read the whole book!
At one point Dawks actually criticises the design of the eye, saying it's been wired up back-to-front, but he's been shot down by biologists!-

"If the rods and cones were turned around to face the incoming light, as Dawkins requires, the pigment layer would have to be between the light and the light receptors, thus blocking vision altogether!"
http://creation.com/seeing-back-to-front

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

"Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground ...Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees. (pp. 113–4)

This is actually a very prominent idea for how flight may have evolved. I wouldn't expect you to know anything about that of course.

And no, he never said it came out of thin air. He was speculating. Any simpleton can see that.

And did you just cite "creation.com" as "scientists shooting Dawkins down"???

/facepalm
Those are the same people who think the Earth is 6000 years old.

0 Replies

Quote:

JimmyJ said:@RF- And did you just cite "creation.com" as "scientists shooting Dawkins down"??? /facepalm
Those are the same people who think the Earth is 6000 years old

ANY biologist (even atheist ones) will tell you that if the eye was wired up differently according to how Dawks suggests, we'd all be blind as bats.. Smile

And no modern Christian thinks the earth is only 6000 years old for the simple rason that time is stretchy and elastic and may well have run at different speeds at certain times like a spool of tape being fast-forwarded.. Smile

"With God a thousand years are as one day" (2 Peter 3:8 )

Heck, on occasion time has actually gone into reverse, or the sun did, or the earths spin did-
"Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down" (Isaiah 38:8)

And on another occasion time stood still (or the earth or sun did)-
"The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since" (Joshua 10:12-14)

1 Reply

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know