Hello from LogicalAtheist

  • Thread starter LogicalAtheist
  • Start date
  • #51
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
No your not [seeing emotional statements]. You're just not understanding what I'm saying.
How, then, would you classify phrases like:

"you're making unintelligent jerry springer like assumptions about what I said. I suggest you shut it until you have something worth saying, and quit making JS assumptions please. Ya look bad man, take a shower!"

?
 
  • #52
1,490
22
Enthropy,

ROTFLMAO!!! That Special Olympics thing, although not very PC, is so funny I had to get up and go outside to laugh (I'm at work)! I'm still laughing at it.


Originally posted by Damgo...
entropy -- LMFAO! but watch me do it anyways...
Me too.


It always amazes me that atheists, who you would expect to have an open mind, could have such a closed mind to even the remote possibility that they could be wrong about the existence of God.

Faith issues cannot be settled by scientific methods. It is not a science. Science is the study of things physical or material. Emotion must come into the decision. How you feel about the existence of God is an emotional question. How can you expect others to approach an emotional issue using only logic? Would that truly be smart?

Many people have felt the presence of God. Whether they have imagined this presence or not is immaterial, to them it is real. It is like the body preparing itself physically for the induction of sugar into the system when a person just starts thinking about eating ice cream (insulin production rises, etc.). The mind doesn't make the distinction between the real and imagined ice cream.

It seems to me that a closed mind is a closed mind. It doesn't matter if that mind is in a Bible thumping hyper conservative fundamentalist bent on converting the world, or in an atheist thumping the Bible bent on converting the world.

Also, if you are going to call religious people unintelligent,
My definition of intelligence rules out relious people. Thus they can't be intelligent, in the way i define it.
I suggest you correct your word usage before you post. I have spotted glaring errors in several of them (not even talking about typos).

Hey, I know I'm not perfect (afterall, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God), but then I'm not calling people unintelligent.
 
  • #53
34
0
Originally posted by Artman

It always amazes me that atheists, who you would expect to have an open mind, could have such a closed mind to even the remote possibility that they could be wrong about the existence of God.
Hi

Please do not lump all atheists into one category. "LogicalAtheist" (or whatever he purports to be) is but one person, just as Jerry Falwell is one person. Let's avoid generalizations. Thanks.

As for the rest of this thread.... [zz)]
 
  • #54
Zero
kids, this isn't the Religion board...keep if fluff in here OR ELSE!!
 
  • #55
eNtRopY
Originally posted by Zero
kids, this isn't the Religion board...keep if fluff in here OR ELSE!!
Yeah, Zero is a good name for you.

eNtRopY
 
  • #56
53
0
Carefull, he can bust your poll count right back to zero (not funny even if you do have a freakishly high average ) Or ban you all together
 
  • #57
1,490
22
Originally posted by Galatea...
Please do not lump all atheists into one category. "LogicalAtheist" (or whatever he purports to be) is but one person, just as Jerry Falwell is one person. Let's avoid generalizations. Thanks.
Good point. I will keep that in mind.
 
  • #58
LogicalAtheist
Likewise. Don't assume all atheists are as logically and scientifically minded as I. There are a vast population of atheists who reach that conclusion by illogic and other idiocy.

You can reach the right answer, the wrong way.
 
  • #59
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
Originally posted by Galatea
Let's avoid generalizations.
Yeah, all generalizations are bad.
 
  • #60
53
0
Not all generalisations are bad
 
  • #61
Nicool003
Haha! Evolution has LONG since been proven. WTF world are you living in? All agents of evolution have ALL been documented in every species discovered on the planet. Are you living in a damn commune?

Actually psyberfreak is indeed correct. Evolution has NOT been proven true yet and if these scientists couldn't prove it right im certain you cant without bending information to try to suit your purposes....


Zero can you please move this to Philosophy ro religion so we can continue it there....?
 
  • #62
LogicalAtheist
Nicool. Read a dammed book. I won't allow you to spread religious idiocy here.

Evolution is a network of agents. All currently accepted agents of evolution have been proven in every single species on the Earth.

Don't question this sh*t please. I have an MS in NeuroBiology and am currently finishing an MD. Don't start your religious idiocy here.
 
  • #63
LogicalAtheist
You're not very bold spreading idiocy behind a forum name.

The concept defies logic. Accepted evolutionary agents are accepted BECAUSE they've been proven. Duh. So you pick one that is scientifically accepted and I'll do you the honor of showing you how easily it's been proven. Until then quit spreading idiocy.
 
  • #64
Nicool003
Nicool. Read a dammed book. I won't allow you to spread religious idiocy here.

Evolution is a network of agents. All currently accepted agents of evolution have been proven in every single species on the Earth.

Don't question this sh*t please. I have an MS in NeuroBiology and am currently finishing an MD. Don't start your religious idiocy here.

And I wont allow you to spread Atheism here. If you won't let us religous people use the bible then it is only fair that you not be allowed to use scientific information. The Bible is used by many religions so if you disallow its use for this argument then YOU cant use any science books. So perhaps you should allow us to use it in arguments dont you agree?


As for eviolution being proved for every single species on earth... hahahaha! I laugh at the stupidity of that comment. There isn't even enough evidence that humans evolved has several others here have agreed that there simply isn't enough evidence. You are trying to sound tough and confident but I have not seen or heard any evidence.
 
  • #65
Nicool003
The concept defies logic. Accepted evolutionary agents are accepted BECAUSE they've been proven. Duh. So you pick one that is scientifically accepted and I'll do you the honor of showing you how easily it's been proven. Until then quit spreading idiocy.

My idiocy? This topic wouldn't be here without your stupidity
 
  • #66
LogicalAtheist
Yep keep actin' immature.

Like I said, ya can't point out a single evolutionary agent. You lost. I win. Get used to it.
 
  • #67
1,490
22
Like I said, ya can't point out a single evolutionary agent. You lost. I win. Get used to it.
I have one. The first instance of life on this planet. What was it, and from where did it evolve? Please also indicate the evidence of this.

If all of the agents are "known" then the ones involved in this should be in that group.
 
  • #68
1,490
22
By the way, I agree with the THEORY of evolution. I am not convinced that it has been fully proven as science fact.
 
  • #69
LogicalAtheist
Artman - there is an all to common mistake people make when speaking of evolution. You've just made it. I'll gently explain, since you're a nice guy.

Evolution, even darwinian evolution but modern evolution as well, makes absolutely no statement about the origin of life on the planet. None whatsoever.

People often say things to the effect of "evolution doesn't prove how life began". You're right, that's a completely different theory all together. I can speak on that if you'd like, but I'll start a new topic; my introduction here has warranted to much stuff!

Also, your usage of scientific theory versus a scientific fact is something I should address. I'll do so in a brand new section. Look for them!
 
  • #70
1,490
22
Thank you LogicalAtheist. I will look for them.

By the way. I like the way that you approached my response. Some of the most respected members of this forum work in just that way: attack the points, and not the person.

You're learning :smile:

"See" you around the forum.
 
  • #71
LogicalAtheist
The only time I committ an ad hominem is when the person is downright out of their element. One can't allow a religious person to speak on science. They're drowning in mythology, how dare they speak a word refuting truth.

There are exceptions. Some people are religious for family or traditional reasons, not because they're truly warped.

Your statement was simply a misunderstanding, it's a common one too. Why? Because truth has one enemy. Falsity.

While falsity is certainly being killed off one by one, it'll be a while. I do my part and spread truth and kill falsity.
 
  • #72
Nicool003
Yep keep actin' immature.

Me? You are acting like a child and you have graduated from college and are most likely in your 30's. I am probably half your age!



Ok if you INSIST there is proof that evolution happened where as you still havent given any real proof say it did happen. Did a lifeform just pop up outta nowhere and begin to evolve? No if intelligent life came from evolution it was by gods will and the life he created.
 
  • #73
LogicalAtheist
Originally posted by Nicool003
Me? You are acting like a child and you have graduated from college and are most likely in your 30's. I am probably half your age!



Ok if you INSIST there is proof that evolution happened where as you still havent given any real proof say it did happen. Did a lifeform just pop up outta nowhere and begin to evolve? No if intelligent life came from evolution it was by gods will and the life he created.
Welp people. Here we have it. The classic case of a religious mythopath who asks science to prove itself over mythology. A sad case. And she neglects to understand that evolution makes no claims about the origin of life on earth.
 
  • #74
Nicool003
Welp people. Here we have it. The classic case of a religious mythopath who asks science to prove itself over mythology. A sad case. And she neglects to understand that evolution makes no claims about the origin of life on earth.

That'd be a HE to you, you ignorant, atheistic, pitiful person.

How about the classic case of a fanatical atheist who can't accept that without religion science is nothing and that religion is NOT MYTHOLOGY.

PS learn to read my profile says i am MALE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #75
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
The only time I committ an ad hominem is when the person is downright out of their element. One can't allow a religious person to speak on science. They're drowning in mythology, how dare they speak a word refuting truth.
You have violated rule number 2.

You're superimposing the myth that religious people cannot comprehend science onto reality.


And there's a nuance you missed in your crusade to convince the rest of us that anyone with a slight religous bent is a raving lunatic; while evolution does not speak of abiogenesis, it does claim intelligent life evolved from unintelligent life (unless you believe no organism is unintelligent).
 

Related Threads on Hello from LogicalAtheist

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
632
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
919
Top