Why do people laugh at Creationists?

The problem is that the definition he posted to insult me with was what I posted. His lacks reading comprehension.

 

Your MEMORY is not a virtue...

 

Says the guy who completely forgets what questions he's asked and never notices that he has been given multiple answers for them.

I gotta tell you. Most people I argue science with actually like the subject enough to be passingly familiar with at least some of it.

You are unique.

 

I should have checked the link before. You atheists claim to be superior intellects but you have been taken in by a satire website. This entire thread is fail.

 

Before this causes more confusion and unwarranted vitriol, let me just throw in that a "gnostic atheist" or "gnostic theist" would be someone who pertains to know that god does or does not exist. The term relates to the claim, the stance, you may find this useful: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

 

You didn't realise before? It's a famous site. It's not satire, it's parody.it mocks by imitation. It mimics reality to the point of conflation.

 

Because they are dumb!

 

I hope so........ if it is a parody, then atleast some of my faith in humanity will be restored.

 

Neither is yoru fallacious dismissal of it. Its called an appeal to authority, and all it really sreves to highlight is that atheists will not even bother to look at teh evidence they demand.

Sounds like a far larger problem for atheists than religious people. We are clerly not the one avoiding evidence are we?

Then why o why are you arguing about it?

There was a problem with it when you thought it came from me, but when I point out that several atheists have linked me too it in the past ... suddenly its just peachy? WTH?

Agh no, he's quite knowable, just not through science. Science can only deal with the probability in this case, and it case you missed it (and you seem to be avoiding it entirely above) there is a very distinct possibility of there being a God. In fact, a great many scientists have no problem with this statement.

May come as a shock, but Jesus wasn't talking about beakers and equations. Great tools in a lab, lousey tools in a relationship and policy making.

Then why do atheists have so many different categories for themselves? Are we changing something once again just to disagree for disagreements sake?

So, it is your scientific opinion that cutting and pasting something, with a link that everyone can read, has been fundamentally misquoted because atheists have several denominations but this one is actually all theists and atheists - a conclusion upon which you have no evidence or support whatsoever?

And of course, the accusatory invective is necessary to make this logical case?

Your atheism is simply not about science at all. It is about angry blind faith.

 

Actually it is a complete parody, but many Christians sound just like the landover folk. That's what makes them so funny. Here is a list of parody organizations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_religion.

 

It is just that bit over the top to be recognised as parody, but the parody is pretty close to the real thing.

Some of the stuff posted on religion forums is almost indistinguishable.

I wish I had kept some links when I browsed.

 

Wow...it's just a parody forum? Well that explains this ridiculously hilarious post then. http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showpost.php?p=799569&postcount=22

It is a bit funny to see real people attempt to explain why it rains though. But nobody's listening. It's like the Renaissance Fair. Everyone's in character and won't break it for anything! lol

 

I disagree. There are many insoluble Sodium salts.

Biproducts from bactrial respiration could easily aid in the production of such salts.

 

Though it doesn't bring much of a relief that the Landover site is so difficult to tell apart from the real thing, I'm so relieved to hear that it's a parody.

 

There ya go. That's what you should be asking.

Though you're way too late, - you should've asked and answered this BEFORE grabbing the creationist conclusion and running with it.

 

My faith in your intellect has been lowered. Landover Baptist has been a parody site out for years. I thought that was common knowledge.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070824170841AATVViv

The sad thing is that it's realistic, despite being a parody.

 

That has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is sea salt.

 

Soluable salts entering the water cycle, insoluabale ones - not.

 

Truly awesome!!! Poe's Law proven right here!

 

When the world and your beliefs crash ... remember that this is the standard.

For you see, atheists are far from free of this procivility to believe what they want. Unfortuantely, this unhealthy fixation on Creationists appears to be the long standing tactic of pointing out faults in others in order to avoid the very real problems in their own arguementation.

For example, a Creationist can be faulted for ignoring the fossil evidence, including transitional species, in order to maintain their belief.

An atheist can be equally faulted for ignoring the evidence relating to God, such a documented miracles, scientific observation that point to definitive possibilities, etc. Indeed, there are large portions of both the theological community and scientific commnity that take great pains to show the harmony between the two fields.

So, everytime you hear an atheist say, "There is NO evidence for God," you just found yourself an atheist Creationist. For some reason, the atheists bashing CReationists cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this - any more than ardent Creationists can their omissions. So, once again, the louder you hear one denounce the other, the more illogical the positioning becomes in reality.

The simply fact of the matter is that there is not enough scienctific documentation to remove or confirm God from the Creation equation. We know there was a ball of eneregy that appeared from source unknown and ignoted for reasons unkown, creating time and space itself. Atheist Creationists will latch on to Hawkings suposition that the universe merely farted itself into existence for reasons unknown and apparently un-reproduceable, but such a contention has no more scientific bearing than the idea that a Creator set these things in motion for a reason, a purpose - culminiating in us ... with a chance to actually do something.

I am not sure why think life has a purpose is something that bothers atheists, particularly those infected with an anti-religious zeal, so much?

The simply fact of the matter is that the atheists who are most hot and bothered about Creationism are in most cases the biggest violaters of the standard the use to bash Creationists with.

Of course, the Bible warns us about such hypocritical judgement ...

"“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)

Kind wierd how a book based on imagination can be so accurate about human foibles?

 

And that has what to do with Sea Salt?

Right, absolutely nothing. Common trend.

 

Oh, I've looked at it. And as I've mentioned the previous times you've brought it up, if some proposed evidence for some thing can be shown to be false or fallacious in some way, then it is no longer evidence. I also mentioned that if you wanted to start a thread specifically addressing the "evidence" listed on that page, I'm sure you'd get plenty of responses which show how they are wrong.

I'm not arguing with that definition, I never have. It's the only definition I've ever used. My issue is that that's not the definition you use while ranting about atheists.

No, not by any means. What you are referring to is called "belief" or "faith". Sometimes, when people believe something so strongly, they confuse said belief with knowledge - but there is a huge difference.

No, there is a very slight possibility of there being a god (small "g", generic god, not the Christian God). Any actual evidence that we do have points to, at the very least, no god is necessary.

Irrelevant.

We actually don't. It's just that you've been so dishonest about it all for so long, you can't keep your nonsense straight from reality. You are the only one who keeps changing things. We say the same thing over and over, and you still refuse to get it.

Not sure how you got that. I very clearly stated that the definition that you pasted is correct.

We don't. There is only one - no belief in a god or gods.

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. There's a very simple fix for this - if you'd stop being so blatantly dishonest, people would stop calling you dishonest.

Seems so simple, doesn't it?

It's not about either. It's only about no belief in a god or gods. Full stop.

Science only helps to support that lack of belief.

 

What is the Creationist Conclusion?

You have no clue do you Freeware... The salinity of the ocean is a Gaia thing - how many times do I have to repeat myself to you - hmmm? Come on Freebee, for once just put two and two together. I have no clue what Creationism is (well, I know that you and the Peanut Gallery think I am like a Priest in the "ism" that is Creation) and really don't care to know...

Do you know WHY salinity is a Gaia thing?

 

3.4 tolerance +/- .5

Did you get that? You asked for proof. There it is... There is your proof. Also, we already know the deposits of salt is there, but doesn't equate to the billions of years that the Earth has been here leaving salt behind through evaporation, fish deposits (which is HUGE amount of salt), and inland salt deposits...

So... How does the Planet maintain it's salinity? Nobody has really answered that... Where is the science athiest? Math? Experimentation?

OR are you just followers like sheep... I think it's the later...

 

And that is why your claim is fallacious. That site I linked you too has all manner of detailed evidence, and you simply claim it isn't evidence.

Well, you actually have to read it, because some of it is quite testable and verifiable, and if you think it isn't, well, that burden of proof then falls on you to demonstrate how is is either falsefiable, or untestable. This is how a logic based discussion works. Standard propgandistic prattle about evidence does not actually address the evidence presented.

You suggestions are noted, I am not your subordinate. Please allow me to respond to your claims in the manner of my chosing, not yours. People call these respectful boundaries.

Maybe you should go check you previous posts, because when I linked to it you initially had problems, now you don't. That is your problem, claim whatever you want. As I said, that is what atheists do.

It doesn;t change the fact that atheists on this site routinely use agnostic atheism to say that they merely do not believe because there is no evidence (except there is), and thus they do not believe there is a God (except they are absolutely certain and enjoy running around belittling people of faith because they are so entirely uncerrtain of their claim?).

In short, the entire position is based on omission and sophistry. It is little more than atheist Creationism. Your assurance that this is not so is noted, but I simply refuse to share you faith that everyone but atheists are screwed up and mentally challenged. That is just not right, on many, mant levels.

And how are atheists any different? Where is your rock solid evidence that there is no God?

Oh, that's right you are merely an agnostic atheist - so no evidence is needed whatsoever, and any evidence that is shown you is not actually evidence because ... insert random reason to avoid acknowledging it.

OK, so back up that contention with something that looks like statistics or mathematics. The proofs presented strongly indicate a distinct possibility, and the fact that you barely acknowlegde what billions believe just may mean that your emotions are interrering with your objectivity - a claim that I believe you levelled at others?

How do you address your own subjectivity on this subject?

If scienec is what you say eliminate God, and trained scientists in droves disagree ... well, we call that peer review. That fact that you simply dismiss it points to a lack of objectivity in YOUR position, not ours.

Yes, you do. Atheists classifiy themselves as Strong atheists, etc. and some as rugged bear meat eating, cave dwelling idividualists bound by no authority but themselves. BTW, I have ths source hotlinked, because atheists alternately claim one denominatin of atheism to avoid a claim made by 'strong atheists' or some other such, and then alterantely, as you do, claim there is no such think. Well, as you can see, there is.

http://mwillett.org/atheism/sects1.htm

My personal favorite:

"Weirdoes
Weirdoes believe anything except Christianity. The Bible is total nonsense but every other culture has beliefs that must be respected. There is a grain of truth in everything. Weirdoes believe in fate, UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, astrology (western and Chinese), witchcraft and Feng Shui. They are proud of their open minds, their minds are as open as the prairies, open and vacant. I would rather debate with the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition that one of these buffoons. I am not anti-Christian, I am against any superstitious nonsense, wherever it comes from. There is nothing in any of it."

The really funny part is that most weirdos classify themselves as agnostic atheists.

Now, did I just make that up? Or can you can the constant personal accusations about other people's lack of dishonesty for disagreeing with you.

Now, if Creationists are to be faulted for ignoring evidence, what of atheists who do this?

Yes, after calling me dihonset for stating it, I am then rght on when I back it up ... after pointing out that it is often cited by atheists - suddenly it is spot on in its accuracy ... but somehow I am still dishonest?

Interesting that my quote can indeed by accurate but somehow dishonest at the same time.

Again, did you notice the part where I claim that certain atheists will claim anything to disgree with and/or bash a Christian?

As long as you demonize the person first, anything that follows is OK? Is that how it works?

And that is the problem. All you ever state is your opinion, and then fail to back it up.

Kinda hard to have a discussion with someone who views any opinion other than his own as instantly invalid and dishonest ... because he says so.

Yep, thesis, supporting evidence, rebuttal of common counters, and restated conclusion or ...

Totally unsupported positions and emotional claims of charcter flaws (the olf ad hominem).

Your choice.

And, there is evidence that point to the strong possibility of a God, or, at the very least, a possibility strong enough that would validate every religious persons belief in something more.

Yet you attack them anyway rather than respectfully disgree? Again, that is an emotional, not scientific, thing.

Pretty simple.

Then why is only one of us using it? And why is that side NOT your side?