It’s on: Christian group files complaint accusing atheist bus ads of being untruthful
posted at 3:46 pm on January 9, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You guys don’t really want to litigate this subject in court, where actual evidence matters, do you?
Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) yesterday, saying the adverts break the ASA’s codes on substantiation and truthfulness…
‘There is plenty of evidence for God, from people’s personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.
‘But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it,’ said Mr Green…
The adverts contain the slogan: ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life,’ whilst the ASA code states that ‘marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation’…
Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said they were not taking the Christian Voice complaint seriously.
Scopes Trial II, starring Christopher Hitchens as Darrow and Rick Warren as Bryan. I’m available to work pro bono, provided I get to meet the lovely Ariane. Exit question: What’s the “documentary evidence” that supposedly “proves” the claims made in Christian ads? The gospels? Does the Book of Mormon “prove” Mormonism too?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Nice list, though you did forget Geisler.
Another that should be added to that list: Surrendra Gangadean
His book is apologetics solely based on logic.
Tim Burton on January 9, 2009 at 6:05 PM
You don’t have the slightest clue as to what counts for evidence when it comes to historical events.
Darth Executor on January 9, 2009 at 6:06 PM
In related news, Maher is giving away his tripe for free:
http://atheistnews.blogs.fi/2009/01/09/religulous-full-movie-now-free-on-internet-5348411
Darth Executor on January 9, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Judging from your posts, you have less.
Ann NY on January 9, 2009 at 6:08 PM
A magic bunny or Santa or one of those beloved kids characters told me God was the real deal. I am trying to get that on a bus but the line behind the other religious whack-jobs is too long.
grdred944 on January 9, 2009 at 6:09 PM
I know you are but what am I!
Wow, I’m impressed.
Darth Executor on January 9, 2009 at 6:13 PM
He doesn’t have the best attempt.
You obviously haven’t read Plantinga or even better Surrendra Gangadean’s work on Worldviews. Gangadean using logic shows the irrationality of Material Monism and the irrationality of Spiritual Monism. Therefore, since All is Temporal is self-defeating only Theism exists as a worldview.
Tim Burton on January 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Your response to me was so fact filled and even handed, I thought I’d return the gesture in the spirit in which it was given.
When you can communicate like an adult, then you will be treated as one.
Ann NY on January 9, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Oh and Ann, you don’t have to prove God, you just have to prove all other worldviews are irrational (since there are 4 logically exclude the three others) and then the Square of Opposition proves the one left.
After that point, you only have to use the Kalam Cosmological Theory to prove that Theism is rational.
Tim Burton on January 9, 2009 at 6:18 PM
If someone had said the moon is made out of cheese, would you “communicate like an adult”?
That’s what “And using “miracles” documented by the church is not empirical evidence.” is. “The moon is made out of cheese”. If you had said it’s not “good evidence” it would be a subject one can expand upon “like an adult”, but to say it’s not evidence, period, is utterly asinine. I’m not Catholic but the RCC is far from the type of organization to just declare something a miracle at the drop of a hat.
Darth Executor on January 9, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Remarkably well put. I don’t think anyone atheist or theist could improve on that characterization.
Ars Moriendi on January 9, 2009 at 6:24 PM
I have half a brain, and another half on top of that!
No response to the rest of my post? That’s what I thought.
Darth Executor on January 9, 2009 at 6:25 PM
If only other atheists approached their atheism this way.
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 9, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Thanks for the links.
CyberCipher on January 9, 2009 at 6:30 PM
God probably doesn’t exist.
“Probably” being the operative word.
As in: people will probably not be swayed into believing in God or disbelieving in God because of a saying on the side of a bus.
Why do so many Christians so consistently behave like buffoons? Seriously, it’s not Christ we are ashamed of; it’s the idiocy of other Christians.
Queen0fCups on January 9, 2009 at 6:31 PM
This is hilarious! Atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so God *must* exist! That’s some good logic, there.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on January 9, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Unfortunately I find your response essentially devoid of content or respect for logic, which you invoke. You don’t validate or seem to be aware of your own assumptions and from where you derive and validate your terms. “Using logic” – what logic? Inductive? Deductive? You provide two terms to presumably fundamentally categorize philosophies, that actually just reflects your own philosophic framework, which can not itself be assumed- how about first, demonstrating the basis of the distinction between “Material Monism” and “Spiritual Monism” and where you abstract those concepts and validate that way of seeing the world and its relevance to proof of a “god” ? You start in mid-air, when if you are serious, start with Thales and at least indicate briefly why his version of monism was “irrational” vs. simply in error, presumably applying Gagadean’s analysis.
Ann NY on January 9, 2009 at 6:37 PM
It’s turtles all the way down, buddy.
VolMagic on January 9, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Viscount – it’s every bit as logical as saying that because one cannot “prove” God’s existence (whatever that might mean), therefore God does not exist! And furthermore – making it one’s business to convince others to deny God’s existence as well.
Queen0fCups on January 9, 2009 at 6:44 PM
To all believers – I’ll stipulate for this comment that there is a god of some sort. Now, your mission, if you should choose to accept it, is to prove which one is the one true God. There are hundreds of faiths if not a couple of thousand.
I vote for Allah because he put all that oil under the land where Islam was . . . discovered? invented?
Did Peyote ever grow in the Middle East?
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 6:48 PM
If you accept the theory, it establishes a first mover that may or may not be be infinite and may or may not be paying attention to we humans.
dedalus on January 9, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Hm. I’m not name-calling. I’m making an assertion with an implicit premise that the Church is not a peer-reviewed scientific organization, either by statement of purpose and avowed philosophy, track-record in the history of science, nor professional standing. Thus, “documentation” by them can not be treated as “documentation of empirical facts.” My assertion is a serious, adult condemnation, but not name-calling. Your counter-argument, “Not the type of organization” is an empty assertion – implied stature, respect, age and gravitas, as with all characteristics associated with and conveyed on “authority,” are not valid arguments in logic.
Ann NY on January 9, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Hah! pwnd.
ronsfi on January 9, 2009 at 6:54 PM
I am perfectly willing to take your word for that. It is interesting that you felt the need to elaborate on it though.
Ars Moriendi on January 9, 2009 at 6:56 PM
.
You talk purdy.
ronsfi on January 9, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 6:48 PM
It doesn’t matter who you think “He” is or what name you call “Him” – He refers to himself as The Great I AM – I think that just about says it all.
All the rest of religion is doctrine and dogma; there to control and manipulate others. It is not there to facilitate a personal relationship with your creator – it is to create separation between you and your creator by putting in conditions. True faith is personal revelation…whether or not anyone else shares it with you.
Queen0fCups on January 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM
There is some much that is wrong here in methodology, so many assumptions and jumps and avoidance of disciplined validation of concepts and awareness of assumptions, I’m not sure where to start. You are playing among terminological castles in the sky. Get down to earth for two seconds.
First, please define what is the standard of “irrational” as applied to a metaphysics. If you are using “irrational” as the equivalent of wrong or invalid, then you are directing us to find error in what you assert are four positions on…what? Four possible philosophies of…what? Positions on God? Is that the fundamental question of philosophy by which all philosophies are differentiated… but who says so?
You do appear to assume that philosophies are most fundamentally distinguished by their positions on this question, since the context of this discussion is the question of a “god.” Then you say there are four “logically possible” positions. Help me here – what are they and why are there four “logically” possible positions on a proposition, in the context of the Law of Excluded Middle? Either “it is,” or “it isn’t.” That is as much as deductive logic per se can say on it.
By what other standard than rules of logic do you allow or exclude a theory and a body of supporting evidence in this set of four?
Instead of citing variants of process of elimination and latter-day sub-variants of same, how about explicitly stating your validation for a couple things – what are the four positions, why are they the only ones “logically” possible?
Ann NY on January 9, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Of course we want it to go to court Allah, right here in Huntsville, AL.
Any objections anyone?
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Hey, I’m a practicing Catholic and I think I agree with you on that.
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 7:28 PM
“The Origin of Sarah Palin” as told by Chris Hitchens.
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Ideas don’t have to be truthful to be published. They are making a philosophical claim. These aren’t banned by the truth in advertising. They really aren’t advocating a product, but a belief or a non belief. It be like trying to litigate that kosher killing is holy. You would get into a circular argument, cause the Bible says so, well what authority would be put on the Bible? Again, just belief. I understand the Christians wanting to do something about this, but this kind of suit is nonsensical, and suppose the liberal judge says based on the evidence there’s no God, do they want to see that enshrined in law?
eaglewingz08 on January 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM
AP, multitudes of folks who have sincerely tried to disprove Christianity have embraced it. But you have to be willing to follow truth wherever it leads. As I read your post, I kinda doubt that you’re open to the truth.
jgapinoy on January 9, 2009 at 7:53 PM
This whole thread is nothing but a quiet attempt by AllahPundit to make the first tiny step toward belief.
I hear you AP. I have a friend now who is struggling with it. He isn’t even close to being ready to read Aquinas or Chesterton yet. Baby steps.
Have you read “What’s so Great About Christianity?” yet. Not the best thing out there, but a good start.
Good luck. And I mean it.
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Aquinas can be a tough read for someone who’s wanting to look into the spiritual aspects of Christianity. My suggestion is Thomas a Kempis or some of St. Francis of Assisi’s sermons. And, of course, the Gospels.
Matt Helm on January 9, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Maybe someone has already mentioned this before. Doesnt this mean that the burden of proving that there is no god fall upon the ones being sued?
By inserting
this negates the entire premise of is or is not. Probably shows doubt. To me this is the atheist group saying–there probably is or probably is not a god. Why use “probably” if you are confident in your premise?
Hope I did not offend anyone,I just felt the point needed to be made. Faith can be subjective-to me my personal beliefs are real and tangible. To one who has different life experiences than I have had they will subjectively perceive that experience. Whats real and tangible and provable to one,may not be real,tangible, and provable to another.
canditaylor68 on January 9, 2009 at 8:46 PM
The word in the campaign we need to pay attention to is “there is PROBABLY no God…”
That’s like saying, “You probably don’t have AIDS (even thous all the evidence points to the contrary) so let’s have sex.”
Would you? I’m not taking any chances.
Amy Proctor on January 9, 2009 at 9:17 PM
PS…but at least the brains behind the ad was honest. No one can disprove the existence of God.
Amy Proctor on January 9, 2009 at 9:18 PM
If personal experience is sufficient evidence of God for legal purposes, then the courts would have to recognize the Hindu Gods, Allah, Jesus, etc… If this lawsuit succeeds, it might even set a precedent that British Muslims could use to ask for Sharia laws for themselves.
Except that we’ve actually seen the HIV virus. We can definitively test if someone has AIDS. Now if you could develop a test that showed someone believed in the right God…
RightOFLeft on January 9, 2009 at 9:40 PM
RightOFLeft, wouldn’t it be a good idea to worship all of them just to be safe? I would advise people to include the Greek gods just as an extra precaution.
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 10:05 PM
It’s the only way to be sure. It would totally blow my candle and incense budget, though.
There’s probably no God, though, so I don’t worry and I enjoy my life.
RightOFLeft on January 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Those who are convinced that they can prove the existence of their favorite god, I will remind you that proving that existence is several orders of magnitude more difficult than proving the existence of extra-terrestrial visitors. If you do believe that space aliens are flying around, then I think that you will believe anything.
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 10:17 PM
No one can prove the negative claim that the ancient Egyptians didn’t drive SUVs and didn’t had the power of natural flight.
Oh, wait…
Context changes everything. Which god, BTW? There are so many.
Gene Splicer on January 9, 2009 at 10:23 PM
The existence of space aliens and the Loch Ness monster can’t be disproven either.
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 10:31 PM
The SUVs handled well in the sand and were helpful in hauling equipment to the pyramids. I don’t think they had satellite radio though–that would be pretty far fetched.
dedalus on January 9, 2009 at 10:36 PM
I read part of book way back in the early ’70s that had the premise that Egyptians, Mayans and others had extra-terrestrial help in building their large structures. I can’t remember the title or the author, and that tells everyone how much I believed it.
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 10:42 PM
So which god is your favorite then? The god of secular humanism and lack of moral absolutes or is it the god of pseudo-science and worldly wisdom?
NeverLiberal on January 9, 2009 at 10:49 PM
It was “Chariots of the Gods.” Ain’t the internet great or what?
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 10:52 PM
NeverLiberal, whatever.
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 10:53 PM
:)
But why not? Could Ra not place them in orbit?
Gene Splicer on January 9, 2009 at 10:53 PM
How many eyewitness accounts are required to prove something beyond reasonable doubt?
q2600 on January 9, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Both it is then
NeverLiberal on January 9, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Considering how many men have been convicted of crimes based on witnesses only to be freed after other evidence has proven them innocent, I put zero credibility in eyewitness accounts, especially when it comes to floating lights and spiritual visions.
I participated in a psychology lab experiment many years ago where a confrontation was staged. There were ten of us in the exeriment. Not a one of us correctly identified the “assailant.”
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 11:04 PM
NeverLiberal, I meant you can believe whatever you want to believe.
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 11:06 PM
If this thread is still alive tomorrow afternoon, I’ll return.
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Well then, I guess if we are using that standard, we might as well just throw out any and all written history for the past few thousand years and assume that they all were lying.
NeverLiberal on January 9, 2009 at 11:12 PM
I’m a bit late on this thread, but I think I see a serious line of attack here.
The ad implies that athiesm is the road to happiness, or at least freedom from worry. But there are now statistical studies which appear to show that the more religious people are, the happier they are. If this evidence is correct, they advertisement is promising something but delivering the opposite, which makes it false advertising.
At the very least, the publicity may get these studies aired.
njcommuter on January 10, 2009 at 3:26 AM
No, Gene, there’s only one God. Just because individuals are confused over God’s existence doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist or that there are more than one of him.
Again, the vulnerability of this campaign is that God “probably” doesn’t exist, but since no one can prove God does’t exist, why take the chance?
But knock yourself out and prove he doesn’t exist. I’d like to see the evidence.
Amy Proctor on January 10, 2009 at 4:37 AM
poor christians, it’s so tough to be the ‘oppressed majority’ huh?
lol
In the future when people look back on this time, and the continuing insistence on belief in sky fairies by a sadly large majority, they will wonder how so much technology and science could have developed at the same time. I just hope we get past all the nutbag religions before one of yours screws it up for everyone.
chupa on January 10, 2009 at 5:44 AM
People know that God exists until they harden their hearts to the fact that he does. He has imprinted his laws on our hearts. That is why we each “know” that it is wrong to kill another person or it is wrong to steal from our neighbor. Some, however turn from God and harden their hearts and the farther they get from him the less they feel him and they stop believing these laws. Be careful about claiming that he does not exist…you may not like the result…
sabbott on January 10, 2009 at 7:32 AM
No one can prove I’m not sitting in a room full of invisible fairies either.
Ann NY on January 10, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Let’s take the argument of an athiest. There is no God. So what is your life all about? You are born, you live a very short number of years and then you die…to what end? Your life had no meaning, there is no ultimate bigger question. There is nothing beyond yourself! Your 70 or 80 or even 90 years here on earth when compared to eternity is but a blip… That would seem to me a very sad existence with some very dire consequences taken to an ultimate conclusion in societal morals… Why act decently? Who cares?
Why not take what is yours in this life and the hell with everyone else? You only get one shot and then it’s over…oh yea…that is exactly what is being taught to our youth today and we are puzzled at their actions and lack of moral clarity…
sabbott on January 10, 2009 at 8:59 AM
this is so funny..the atheists say we can’t ‘prove’ God…well *we* don’t have to…He’s already given all the proof you’re gonna get…look around…but you atheists think that your hairygod darwin was right and all this just ‘happened’ yeah sure it did…even ’science’ is figuring out that ‘all this’ is just a little too good, and too fine-tuned.
ever hear of the anthropic principle? of course the alternative is the ‘multiverse’ which is sheer fantasy…but atheists will cling to any wacko idea like the mutliverse or evolution, so they don’t have to face the alternative…which is GOD..but guess what? you’re gonna have to face HIM sooner or later…
play the game, pay the price. keep believing in your hairygod darwin…but if you’re right, I lose nothing, if I’m right, you lose everything.
have a nice day!!
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 8:59 AM
.
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Him? Sorry your god is both male and female.
ronsfi on January 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM
I don’t think the scientific community foresaw the rejection of reason in exchange for comfortable superstitions. Looking back on it though it seems a forgone conclusion. Scientists were naive in thinking that empirical reasoning would be embraced by all mankind. People fear what they don’t understand. Science must become a religion. Because if not, mankind will revert to a belief system that they can understand ,as they are even now. The universe is weird and far weirder than could be imagined. One can’t expect most or us to grep esoteric ideas that even the brightest among us find insurmountable Such as Brane theory or Evolutionary Biology. The Believers are correct in that most of us must take science on faith value to some extent as we are no scientists but having said that, I can read whole libraries of scientific thought without any restriction as compared to one iron age book that must be interpreted correctly by Men.
Hmm.
ronsfi on January 10, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Religious people are only happier than atheists in more religious countries. It has more to do with being part of a very small idealogical minority than it has anything to do with the worldview itself. For example, Denmark, which has the largest percentage of athiests in the world, also consistently ranks as one of the happiest countries in the world.
Discussions of atheism always veer into this sort of stuff, where people start talking more about the implications of a Godless universe. While I reject the idea God intellectually first and foremost, I also find the idea of a God horrifying and morally repugnant.
If there is a God there is
No Privacy – God watches you at all times, when you are asleep and when you are alone, even your thoughts. It seems silly to fight for “privacy rights” when such a thing is impossible in a universe with God.
No Freedom of Thought – According to Christianity mere things like “coveting” and “looking at a women with lust” are crimes that can be persecuted. These are thought crimes, which makes Chrisitan law Orwellian. To think that it is reasonable to persecute thoughts, you have to think that Stalin wasn’t such a bad guy after all.
No Freedom of Speech – Why do Christians love the First Amendment, but think that banning taking the lords name in vain is perfectly reasonable?
No Free Will – If someone “grants” you free will, you don’t actually have it. If your free will is conditional on the desire of another being (i.e. they can take it away on a whim) then it isn’t free. Some branches of Chrsitaintiy, like Calvinism, even own up to this fact and deny the existence of a free will.
No Escape – In the horribly tyranical universe that Christians describe, there is no escape from having no privacy, no freedom of thought, and no free will, even in death, even if you believe the right things. You will always be monitered, watched, and controlled. Once your are born into this prison, you are stuck in it for eternity. In universe with the Christian God, the cruelest thing that your mother can do to you is allow you to survive past your childhood, so God can never start racking up arbitrary “sins.”
You can argue all you want about the downsides of a godless universe, but the alternative is downright terrifying and evil.
I mean, anyone can believe what they want, but I don’t understand the upside to a universe with God.
justfinethanks on January 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM
laughable. lying for darwin again. lets see Jesus came as a MALE…but don’t worry, you’ll get the chance to tell HIM to HIS face someday…I hope I’m around to see the look on your face!!
we reject the faith of atheism that darwiniacs try to pawn off as ’science’. Evolution is an atheist fairy tale. you cannot evolve anything in the lab, you cannnot see evolution in the fossil record, nor can you list the sequence of mutations that led to an eye for example…yet you beleive it happened….its called faith… and we’ve figured out that you’re nothing more than IMAMS for hairygod darwin. evolution has transformed ’science’ into atheism. and we’re not buying the snake oil you darwiniacs are selling!!
cry me a river….150 years of lies and no luck!! and since we’re not buying it, you darwiniacs act like typical brown-shirted ‘tolerant’ fascists…trying to sue, silence and harass all who dissagree, like sternberg.
yeah and we’re down to 2 choices…the multiverse…which is a total fantasy, not scientific at all…but science embraces it…because the alternative…the anthropic principle….GOD is unthinkable!!
please, evolution is nothing but faith…and when its tried…it FAILS in the lab…
The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components.
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM
talk about orwellian wow.
and, so? doesn’t stop you or anyone else from committing terrible atrocities does it now??
this is laughable….its the atheists, the darwiniacs who say we have no freedom of thought…or anything else…we’re slaves to our genes.
uh you darwiniacs want to ban any speech that denies hairygod darwin..please.
again laughable…when its the darwiniacs who believe this. Christians believe in free will…because YOU are responsible for YOUR actions..and will get the reward or penalty…
very true…there is no escape from heaven or hell…no one wants to escape from heaven..and no one CAN escape from hell…ever…abandon all hope you who enter there….
given that there wouldn’t be one without Him…
your ‘logic’ is typical of athiests…professing to be wise, they have become fools….
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Yes. ;)
That should rile things up.
It would heat up even more if I said that mainstream modern Christianity claims some pretty silly things vis-à-vis the Bible, so you really can’t use their statements in a definitive trial — they amount to hearsay.
So I won’t mention anything about it, because I’m so darned polite.
Prufrock on January 10, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Psalm 14:1
…..again, I say Psalm 14:1
HEART not HEAD
God doesn’t beleive in Athiests.
John The Baptist on January 10, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Once again man is making a monkey out of himself…no bones about it.
John The Baptist on January 10, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Wouldn’t that be more of an agnostic position?
ddrintn on January 10, 2009 at 5:59 PM
You are a rotten, evil person.
ronsfi on January 10, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Also wrong for life, you should not should not pass off other peoples words for your own.
http://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/9415
Liar and thief.
ronsfi on January 10, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Also the “Science must become a religion” thing. It seemed good when I typed it but reading it aloud? Not so much. Just seeing how religion reduces someone to a hateful ignorant ranting rageaholic like R4L should be enough to prove how poisonous religion is to the human mind. We just need to educate people who feel so lost in this sea of technology that they must cobble together a world view from bits of half learned science, misunderstood myth glued together with great gooey gobs of superstition. The kind of thinking that produces saints in sandwiches and “Christlike auras” et al.
ronsfi on January 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM
I don’t understand why everyone dumps on Mormons all the time. We try to be such kind people to everyone and all they do in return is be rude and imply that we’re freaks. *sigh*
No use mentioning the Book of Mormon in a question about our validity, Allah, half the people here probably have no idea what it -really- is anyway, so they couldn’t properly answer your question. Most the Christians I know think it’s some sort of rewritten Bible or a devil book or something to that effect. Wikipedia has a decent entry about the BOM if anyone really cares, or mormon.org.
Christina D on January 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM
I hold that kind of behavior against the individual rather than religion in general. I stopped reading R4L’s posts a long time ago because of the hatefulness.
Discussing religion is a lot like discussing politics. Some people can do it calmly and without animosity and some people can’t.
backwoods conservative on January 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Politics? Someone once told me, “Go f**k yourself” because I did not believe that space men crashed in Roswell, NM.
Pelayo on January 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Uh, space aliens.
Pelayo on January 10, 2009 at 7:40 PM
How dare you have critical thinking ability. ;)
backwoods conservative on January 10, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Having met several hateful ranting atheists myself, I don’t think that is a very valid argument.
Christina D on January 10, 2009 at 8:08 PM
lying piece of trash. I put the LINK THERE duhhhh can’t you read moron???
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 8:14 PM
you’re just upset because I make you look so stupid..but the truth is you do that to yourself with every post.
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 8:16 PM
oh gee, maybe someday I’ll be holier-than-thou like you!!
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 8:18 PM
uh moron I have a MS degree and work in a scientific field. and you can’t argue with what I post…all you can do is spew ignorance and hatred like a typical darwiniac.
laughable.
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 8:20 PM
oh and darwin was a racist, and his theory was racist as hell…
and his wonderful ‘theory’ gave us EUGENICS…which is applied evolution…which led to the gas chambers…
bet this post will have the spittle running down your cheek ronsfi!! *smirk*
truth hurts sonny.
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 8:26 PM
oh and ronsfi, since you’re so ’scientific’ maybe you can explain the following:
THIS IS THE LINK just so you don’t miss it sonny *smirk*
explain why all the ‘micro’ evolution doesn’t ‘add up’ to macro evolution….
and while you’re at it…list the exact sequence of mutations, in order please, that led to the eye.
and explain the following:
and please notice the links are there…how can this be??? please explain.
THIS IS THE LINK…DON’T MISS IT!!!
how can this be???? hmmmmmm?? I eagerly await your ’scientific’ explanation!! I’m sure you’ll have no problems telling me how evolution has all the answers!!
I expect it’ll be something like “uhhhhh it evolved, because evolution is true”
I’ve learned you darwiniacs are good at parroting the party line, but have not yet ‘evolved’ independent thinking!!
have a nice day!!
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM
ronsfi, how about explaining brain surgery, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, and why the economy is in the tank. If you can’t explain what causes gravity, then it must not exist.
Pelayo on January 10, 2009 at 8:57 PM
why don’t you take a shot at explaining that..since you’re such a ’scientist’.
or don’t you have to understand evolution…you just believe it? looks like you just take your theory of evolution on FAITH…nice.
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 9:01 PM
if you can’t explain that, then you’re a liberal, obviously!!
my pre-teen understand you can’t spend your way to prosperity…too bad you don’t.
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Let’s agree that I have my faith and you have your faith. I can’t prove evolution to satisfy you and you can’t prove creation to satisfy me.
I’ll await your reply. In the meantime I’ll try to guess what kind of name you’ll call me.
Pelayo on January 10, 2009 at 9:07 PM
I thought you athiests were so ‘rational’?? so now you admit you have ‘faith’ too funny…except your faith in the hairygod of evolution, darwin, will fail you so….
oh I think anyone reading your posts can figure you out all too well…they don’t need my help to describe your ah ‘thinking’
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 9:10 PM
R4L, I don’t have time for you, and you bore me. The Cardinals might just beat Carolina, and I want to watch it.
Pelayo on January 10, 2009 at 9:14 PM
thanks for the laughs!!
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 9:15 PM
oh and ronsfi, this little ‘conversation’ of ours follows the same old same old…I post some scientific articles…and you are unable to respond, instead you pontificate about how ‘evil’ ‘mean’ and ‘unscientific’ I am, while you are a pargon of ‘virtue’ ‘rationality’ and ’science’. A true legend in your own mind! and of course you have to lie about me, as you did here. I’m sure since you’re such a ’stand up’ guy, you’ll apologize for your lies…but that would take integrity, honesty, and guts, and its rather obvious you have none of those qualities…
its a nice dodge, but you need to ‘evolve’ some new lines, and a new tactic. your ignorance is showing.
but I should thank you, you’re quite amusing.
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Really? And what field of science would that be? Considering you think science must include your god in order to be proper and you cannot grasp the nature of how science or scientific theories work, I doubt the veracity of your boast.
Then there would be all the posting of scientific theories you claim supports your point of view, but the detail simply do not. An when you are pressed to delve into details, your rebuttal is to resort to name calling and accusing people of being pompous if they happen to possess a better diction and grasp on grammar.
Odd thing how a person who claims to have a MS in a field of science cannot form a rational or cogent argument but must resort to the most base of diction.
But I’m sure you will tell me from your superior xian point of view just how wrong I am. Again, your reputation, such as it is.
It is theists like you who make me feel bad for people of faith who are earnestly people of faith and refrain or simply would never operate on the hatred you seem to so easily spew.
But that would be my evil atheist personal freedoms view I’m sure.
Later hater…
Gene Splicer on January 10, 2009 at 11:39 PM
why don’t you post your name and address, and maybe I will…why are you SO nosy??? and I don’t really care what you ‘doubt’ or not to be honest with you. since I don’t value your opinion…if you haven’t noticed…..
you darwiniacs say that all the time…but you never can demonstrate it using logic…but logic is tough for you darwiniacs…
you’ve never ‘pressed’ me to delve into ‘details’…you usually ignore what I post, and attack me personally as you are doing here!!
because you cannot deal with what I post..and its rather obvious you don’t even understand it.
thanks for the laughs.
later liar.
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 11:47 PM
oh and uh ‘genie’ why didn’t you go ahead and answer the points I raised? I’m sure ronsfi would be OK with you answering for him….
don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath…
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 11:50 PM
why don’t you darwiniacs answer my point about the tuatara??
its rather simple, the article doesn’t have too many big words…give it your best shot…
lets see if ANY of you darwiniacs can actually defend the ’science’ you claim to be such experts at…
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 11:53 PM
But they like him, because he proves there is no God.
In any case, I think the point was this quote from Mr. Bundy:
I think that’s certainly in the realm of not worrying about what you are doing and enjoying it (a proper subset of “stop worrying and enjoy life”).
unclesmrgol on January 10, 2009 at 11:55 PM
oh and please don’t tell me the morphology of the tuatara hasn’t changed because its ‘fit’ because it survives..and doesn’t need to change…sigh…
right4life on January 10, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »