Religion is Bullsh*t, Get over it, and support science.

this was my view on post 78ish

 

and post #86

fairly consistent i think you will agree

 

i disgree. they are 2 different entities. as i said see weak and strong athiesm

asking for proof is not the issue, its providing proof/alternatives that is the hypocricy

I dont believe anyone has to 'justify' anything. Its justifying your beliefs by mocking others beliefs i take issue with

I will give you an example. a person born catholic rejects it for whatever reason. Its his choice and he must have his reasons. no probs. This person then starts a discussion/debate/argument with a muslim about his beliefs. He acknowledges he has little/no knowledge of islam. how then can he assert islam is wrong? all the time using catholic dogma etc as 'proof'

that to me is less athiest and more anti catholic

 

that sentence in itself is true generally. however your statement earlier, and i quote

'FFS. No one said it did. What I said was, being anti god does not make you an atheist, lacking belief in gods is what makes you an atheist.'

is what i was referring to by highlighting previous posts

i repeat

no god = athiest
anti god = not athiest

 

ok. lets take your example.
how can i refuse or accept without knowing what dragons are? or basing my non acceptance based on crocodiles?

also i did not say i dont need to prove it. if anything i took up the challenge. I gave what I believe is proof of gods existence. now here is the crux of the matter (again)
it is MY belief of gods existence, you take it or leave it isnt the issue

my 'proof' basically was current scientific knowledge that the quran revealed 1400 years ago
embroyology - i cited moore, the authority on the subject, who converted to islam as a result
I also cited some of his peers on request
there were other things too

we then went onto the sanaa manuscripts, which again i proved by quoting Puin himself to prove the assertions being made were false


i am not 'asserting' as in pushing my beliefs. I am simply saying what they are and why. to then mock it as unproven and first dont offer an alternative, then offer one that is even more unproven.....?

 

ps have you read the quran?
what is your knowledge of islam?

 

Why can't you just read my comments and answer them properly, rather than creating strawmen and attacking them?
Dishonesty or laziness?

A few of Moore's peers agreeing isn't consensus.
I'm sure that you're aware of that.
The scientific community has not embraced Islam as the truth and the Quran's version of embryology isn't seen as being a groundbreaking revelation by the majority.
There's no consensus in Moore's favour, so the argument from authority fallacy applies.

The Sana'a manuscripts themselves are no longer available for study, are they?
You can wander away from that point all day, but it's still true.

Your quote from Puin suggests that he's a Muslim and thus carries some bias, but the fact that the manuscripts show changes to things like the order of the Surah suggests that the integrity of the Quran over the years is open to question, especially when the destruction of possibly dissenting copies is well known.

I'm not sure what you want to know from me with regards to abiogenesis.
Could you please clarify?

 

You could have posted clips of Zakir Naik and you may as well have, as most of your arguments for Islam seem to have come from him.
The reason that I posted the evolution clip was that you consistently seemed to misrepresent the theory.
I thought that it might help to clear up some of your misconceptions, but apparently I was wrong.

I haven't presented any alternative views to yours and those that I have are false?
Well, the first part is clearly a lie, which you then accept to be one by saying that I have presented alternative views which are wrong.
The second part is your own, extremely dubious interpretation of what I've written, most of which you appear to have either misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented.

Prove abiogenesis?
I've already stated that it's unproven.
It's the most likely theory that we have based upon the evidence available.
Prove god's existence.

To refute your summary:
I didn't claim that none of Moore's peers agree with him, but that there wasn't consensus amongst his peers that he was right. You're wrong.
I wasn't wrong about the dimming of the stars, as the passage has frequently been interpreted to say that.
I wasn't wrong in any way about Puin or the Sana'a Manuscripts.
I'm not wrong about abiogenesis. Everything that I've said about it is true.

You're genuinely reading what you want to read.
You're seeing arguments that I've not provided and fighting against them, rather than what I've actually written.

 

After 50+ pages you still keep insisting this? Even if you keep repeating it for another 100+ times it's still wrong. What does "anti-god" mean? It means you try to convince others that there is no god, doesn't it?. It's not mutually exclusive with atheism, the belief that there is no god, in fact it fits very nicely with atheism. Or are you suggesting the anti-god people actually believe in god, i.e. are not atheists? Why would anyone be against god if they believe in it? It really shouldn't be that difficult.

Keeping with your logic:

god = religious
pro god = anti-atheist = not religious

So a religious person who preaches about his religion to others, such as yourself, is not religious? Umm no I think you need to rethink this logic.

 

Bloody hell, I can't believe this is still going. I need the cliff notes as I was gone for a week and can't be arsed reading through everything

 

Just read the last couple of pages of this ****. Grown spending their Saturday night arguing on a football forum.

What sad pathetic bunch of ****in losers.

 

Saturday night?

I only come on here to pass the time at work.

 

Aye. I was scanning the last few pages and noticed the date/time of the posts. Whatever happend to having a drink and a ride on the wife/girlfriend?

Clearly some very sad cases who prefer to spend their weekends talking **** on a football forum.

 

Darwin's Black Box and the classic eye quote mine!
Oh, dear.

The passage from Darwin is his suggestion that parts of evolution appear to be extremely counter-intuitive, but that they're proven to be true.
Keep reading after the bit that creationists like and you'll understand his point.

Darwin's Black Box has been ripped to pieces by so many people that it's difficult to know where to start.
It's author was forced to admit that major parts of it were basically rubbish.
He agreed that if you were to accept it's claims as science, then you'd also have to accept astrology.
It was part of an attempt by American conservative Christian creationists to introduce religion into science classes in schools.
4 of the 5 people that Behe had claimed to have peer reviewed it have claimed otherwise in public.
Some of the examples that he listed as irreducibly complex have actually been proven to be false.

In short, it's theistic pseudoscience that's been utterly rejected and proven false.

 

I had a movie night with friends on Saturday night - classic movies, crisps and beer - can't whack that when you are broke and waiting for pay day.

To be fair I did think about wumming the Arsenal board last night (I am a United fan) but I had better things to do.

 

The better thing you had to do was a 'movie night'? Did you and your friends compare butt plugs?

 

Clearly untrue for the majority of atheists.

Atheists don't accept the existence of god and most do it due to a lack of proof.
That's true.
Atheists don't have to have any agreement at all about abiogenesis, though.

Scientists on the whole seem to suggest that it's currently the most plausible explanation for the start of life on earth.
That's it.
If it's proven to be wrong, then that says nothing about whether there's a god or not.
It only shows that one theory was wrong.

You could disprove evolution, big bang theory and abiogenesis and that wouldn't make any argument for the existence of a god or gods correct.
If I prove that something isn't white, it doesn't automatically make it black.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Here's an extremely difficult logic puzzle:

Person Z believes the earth is flat.
Person X believes the earth is spherical.
Person X speaks of his belief to person Z, trying to convince Z that earth actually is not flat but spherical.

Does person X:
a) believe the earth is flat
b) believe the earth is spherical

Because thefanwithnoname has been insisting for 55 pages that person X believes the earth to be flat.

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering with this