Do Atheists Like Science that Doesn't Suit their Agenda?

No, you misunderstood me. I was not using evolution, per se, as an argument against the anthropic principle.

Yeah, that's what I thought, which is why I gave the preface. Looks like you ignored it anyway. Every argument made is completely logical, and parrot exactly what i would have typed up. I simply didn't feel like taking the time (it would have been a lot to type), so instead I used a source that already made the points for me.

If the source is so funny, why don't you try actually addressing what it says? And refrain from any more fallacies.

 

Very easily... It's because religious institutions were a threat to their power and control.

From your own quote:

Atheism was used as a tool to establish and hold power. It nothing to do with actually spreading atheism in a philosophical sense.

In other words, it wasn't about atheism, but rather about removing a competing institution which held power - religion.

 

Yet some atheists on this forum complain about Theists dominating the field of politics and subsequently passing laws that the atheists believe is an impediment to their liberties. So, it appears that in the United States the atheists are seeking a revival of that old tool used by the communist countries. Which would show a political agenda on the part of the atheists as a 'group'. That plan has already failed in those other countries... so goes the old rule... 'if at first you don't succeed, try try again.'

 

Leaving the battlefield? Have a nice day.

 

And rightfully so.

How have you possibly come to this conclusion? I haven't seen anyone advocate anything remotely like what the communists did.

 

Nikita Kruschev. During an assembly at the United Nations back in the 60's, speaking about the United States... stated (paraphrasing) 'we will take over this country without ever firing a shot'. He was speaking of the Communist regime and the tool of atheism. http://partisanpatriot.hubpages.com/hub/WeWillBuryYouwithoutFiringaShot

You should really keep up with the national and international news. Atheists are wanting to blame Christians for the state of the country and the laws, but hey... take a good close look above at the mindset of people in office.

 

You call me when you're ready to have a discussion with the grownups.

 

When you grow up let me know.

 

Quit being a jerk.

 

I'm not the one slinging the little snipes and barbs here, sir. You want to debate the facts? I'm all ears.

 

Mind your own business... and take your own advice while you're at it.

 

ROTFLMBO... That really takes the cake.

 

Its no ones fault but yours when you stsrt name calling people - and yes, you started it - in a public forum - where EVERYONE can see you doing it.

You want it private - wrong place.

You are NOT a victim - again.

 

Excuse me? I am arguing the facts. Your fellow traveler is taking little cheap shots every chance he gets. Again, mind your own business.

 

Like you don't do the same thing? ROTFLMBO.

 

Please cite my alleged personal attacks against you.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/4432189-post182.html

Enough or need I provide more? One instance is enough to show that you also use that same tactic which you accuse me of.

 

That wasn't a personal attack--it was a statement of fact. You were behaving like a child.

 

A persons behavior (in all of its modes of operation) is a part of his/her being. To make a wrong analysis of that behavior is an unwarranted attack against the character of that person, much akin to the act of saying someone is stupid or having the intellect of a child. To say that I was "behaving like a child" is an outright lie with regard to my physical activity (outside of my typing these messages). You cannot see me, therefore you are not seeing my physical behavior, you are only seeing what I type on the computer. So you were in fact launching an attack on my intellect which is a 'personal property' (intellectual property), and you continue that attack in the posting above. My having a degree in Computer Electronics is also another evidence of your erroneous judgment with regard to my intellectual behavior.

You say that your comment was a 'statement of fact'. Please provide those 'facts' for analysis. If you can't provide those facts, then you are also engaging in the fabrication of lies. Give a listing of that/those fact(s) along with your explanation as to why you believe it/them to be true.

 

And yet, time and time again, while watching your fellow atheists slaughter our faith through deliberate ignorance, you get your panties in a bunch when people tell them to stop being ignorant.

Lets see if the concept of personal responsibility makes any sense to you at all.

When these thread degenerate into personal tit for tat, and YOU are in the middle of it, indeed, when you decide to simply dismiss a rebuttal as 'childish' (which is interesting when 19 year olds do it), and take other pot shots at people - maybe you can rain yourself in?

After all, atheists do like to talk about how their moral code is always superior to anything else .... and I for one am a little tired of seeing one thread after another degenerate when an atheist starts hurling insults - attracting the other jackles of atheism that just turns the entire process into a insult fest.

Stop blaming others for YOUR actions. Pretty simple.

 

Neither is religion.

Why are you asking BttR for evidence and standards regarding his or her belief, when you share the same lack of evidence and standards in your own? Aren't you equally guilty of the hypocracy you accuse BttR of?

 

Nope, because I have only stated several hundred times that the scientific evidence for God is inconclusive. I have indeed made several preponderance of teh evidence cases to show how the possibility of God is strong indeed - but, as my FAITH states, the final leap is a leap of faith - same for atheism.

How exactly am I a hypocrite if I openly acknowledge the need for faith? Atheists do not.

 

Now you're just being pedantic. This is tiresome.

 

Yet you believe. I simply do not understand this phenomenon.

If by atheism you mean the unequivocal denial of a deity, believe it or not, we are in agreement. I think the difference is that you still chose to believe--even when you admit that the evidence is inconclusive. I don't mean this as an insult, but do you understand what I mean when I say "faith is the antithesis of reason?"

For my part, I would not call you a hypocrite. I would simply call your belief irrational.

 

And yet you don't believe for no reason at all - but understand that just fine.

Its called being lazy.

And I think this is called rationalization. You are not an agnostic, you think there is no God and you leave open the possibility out of a form of fawning sops - there is simply no honesty in the entreaty. You think there is no God.

It comes across time and time and again when up jump on the band wagon of derision. It comes across when you jump into threads to randomly call us all child molesters. It comes across when you sit back and call us delusional and other excuses.

It is what it is, I see no reason to treat it as anything but what it is.

I would not all call your irrational, I would call laced with contradiction, double standards, and lacking in either curiosity or actual skepticism.

Again, your BELIEF is that MY belief is irrational.

And that says far more about your beliefs then mine doesn't it? Probably the first thing you should be asking yourself is why YOUR beliefs require judgement about my beliefs at all?

A good skeptic would have already asked that question BTW.