Atheism is a religion

I understand our current scientific theories, but that's not the point I was trying to make...

MrConservative claimed that God explained Genesis in a way that could be understood by people of the time, which by today's standards is obviously primitive and incorrect. Since we (scientists/humanity as a whole) now have the intellectual capability to understand things as they actually happened, where is the real explanation? If God explained it to us once in "kiddie talk", why not do it again as "adults"?

 

Russel's Teapot again?

Prove that Russel's Teapot doesn't exist and we can go from there.

 

There is no slight inaccuracy, the entire book is inaccurate. The bible is supposed to be the word of god (if spelling it out is dangerous, you need a new god btw), therefore it should be perfect. The order of Genesis should reflect what is observed in nature.

 

So the water on the earth existed before light? Do you see the glaring inaccuracies here?

The demonstrate the beauty of of the universe and the world we live in, a beauty that is exclusive and separate from mythology.

 

What did I ask? Try to understand a simple question. Not a rocket science

This is how you understand MrConservative? Try again. And Also try to understand the answers:
http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/186443-atheism-religion-10.html
http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/186443-atheism-religion-10.html#post4303486
http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/186443-atheism-religion-10.html#post4303529
Try your intellectual capability to understand a Xn version:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1931MNRAS..91..483L

Am I wasting time with somebody who has multiple personalities disorder or no personality disorder?

 

Spin your wheels on this for a little while:

"3. A Physical Example

Take the surface of a cube in deep space (Fig. 5). Call the cube "thing," a three- dimensional concept. Call the empty space around the cube "nonthing," a three- dimensional nonthing or absence of thing. If we are standing inside the cube and look at its boundary surface, we cannot find a single piece of that boundary surface that does not belong totally to the cube. So we can very reasonably proclaim that by the first three laws of logic each piece of the boundary belongs totally to the cube, to "thing." But if in a different operation we are standing outside the cube, we cannot find a single piece of that boundary surface that does not belong entirely to the space surrounding the cube. So in this case, we can claim by the first three laws of logic that the boundary surface belongs totally to "nonthing." "

excerpted from http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/PART TWO.htm

 

Oh how careless of me... I should have realized that there are some on this forum who would require being shown that they should exchange the "cube" with "Russel's teapot".

 

Everyone who has a bit of brain can see that inabilities of your science and reasoning were fully answered as they were submitted you and you have zero, zilch nothing to counter.


Now your are picking another word out of context and want me to explain the Bible to you word after word. It is called “Moving the Goalpost” logical fallacy. The “Moving the Goalpost” logical fallacy is another one that has a fairly descriptive name. It is the case when Person A makes a claim, Person B refutes it, and Person A moves on to a new or revised claim, generally without acknowledging or responding to Person B’s refutation. Hence, the goalpost of the claim has been shifted or moved in order to keep the claim alive.”

Ok. I will answer with the same, - don't be stupid.

 

Not so much that, but I want you to prove a negative.

 

Assuming that science and reaosning have these fatal "inabilities," with what do you propose to replace them?

 

Not so much what "that"? What negative?

 

Hmmmmmm..... I am not moving the goal posts. You certainly did not refute the ridiculous assertion that the earth existed before light. What you did post was an irrelevant passage stating state god was hovering above the waters in darkness.

What is there to take out of context? I do not see how you can justify the notion that the earth and then water existed before light. Or that birds existed before fish.

I have very little interest in you explaining the bible to me, I imagine its the same as how you probably have little interest in the true creation of the earth. A pan of pasta falling on the floor.

Thats not the same, and not even relevant to what I posted.

 

I said anyone who has a bit of brain...

Assuming? there is no assumption but a proof for anyone who has a bit of brain.

You don't need to replace a sickness or parasies. You need to exterminate them. You don't need to replace garbage, you need to through it in the dampster.

 

Its true that atheism is largely a religion. People like Dawkins have ruined what was once a conclusion made through much personal introspection and outward observation. True Atheism has to be arrived at naturally. The throngs of converts to atheism that flock to men like Dawkins like Catholics to the Pope or worship the man made construct of science like a church are as religious in their nature if not more so than any theist.

 

It is called a state of denial. Typical for atheists. I have not said anything, I have not posted anything I have not addressed anything.
http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/186443-atheism-religion-10.html#post4303529

Was it what I posted? http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/186443-atheism-religion-10.html#post4303529

The word “waters”

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/186443-atheism-religion-10.html#post4303529

Shifting goalposts and red herring fallacy.

It is true.You are not here to have a dialog, as all atheists here you are here to “get them”

I am very interested in you and others claiming that they were there and observed it in nature to inform me about the “true” creation of the erath.

 

Glad to see that some who arrived to atheism as to much personal introspection protest against making it obligatory for all humanity.
It is refreshing to see some can speak from themselves

 

Maybe it is because he wrote a book? No one worships Dawkins in the same way they would a god.

 

*ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE* and that the most basic standards of veracity, namely science and reason, are fatally flawed, do you propose to replace them or do you propose the rejection of veracity altogether?

 

I am not shifting the goal posts, you should probably read Genesis and you will realize this. I am simply citing Genesis. Red herring is usually conducted when a debate is not going well for Joe, and Joe decides to move Jim's attention.

Given that you are expecting me to consult a secret biblical dictionary to figure out what it means for the earth to exist before light, or for birds to exist before fish, I do not see a need to use red herring. Genesis is irrelevant due to its irreconcilable inaccuracies.

Our Lord and Savior was cooking pasta, and it fell on the floor. In realizing his error, he created the earth and everything on it, making pirates and midgets his chosen people.

Here's an eye witness drawing,

 

Sometimes your incoherent ramblings aren't so simple to understand. I put them together as best I could.

Uhm, yes...

Unlike you, he is understandable.

Yeah... and?? This has nothing at all to do with what we were talking about. Did you read even the title of the paper you linked?

Perhaps you should try forming coherent thoughts that at the very least relate to the current discussion.

 

That's doesn't even make any sense. Your quote/example doesn't relate to his point in any way. It seems as though _Inquisitor_ and yourself are attempting to participate in a discussion that is far beyond you.

 

Aren't most gays atheist?

Does anyone know?

?

 

Aren't most rednecks inbred?

Does anyone know?

?

 

You can't stand outside the cube. If you could, there would be something out there and it would not be nothing even though you call it nothing. Thus you have contradicted yourself and violated the laws of logic upon which the premise is based.