Why do people laugh at Creationists?

The pseudo-science "used" does not deserve the name.

 

Oh, but the fallacious dismissal of the very thing you guys ask for, and the total abscence of science from you position deserves the utmost scientific respect?

Why is there no God?

Because angry atheist says so!!! And if you don't accept it, let the insults fly!

Lets hopw you have something a little stronger tham the extraordinarily subjective opinion that only you know what is and is not science, and science is ONLY that which you already accept - and can reject the rest without even bothering to read it.

THAT position, would be unscientific.

 

There is no absence of science from my position when science is relevant for it.

And yes, I have a fairly good idea what qualifies as science and what not, but never claimed to be the only one who has - quit making up stuff in order to launch personal attacks, it's all too obvious and a moronic thing to do.

 

There is no science in our position at all Stroll.

All you state is your opinion, that there is no God and tell everyon that they are wrong ... because you say so.

Get off your horse, come back down to earth, and realize that most people on this planet have a pretty good idea what sceince is.

So when you simply declare something unscientific, because you say so, its called an appeal to authority, its fallacious.

If you THINK (and we already know what you think) then you actually have to read it and rebutt it. You can't, and won't do that.

Its not a personal attack to point out you doing this. You doing this while calling other people moronic for noticing you do this? That is moronic.

If you know how sceince works, then use it. Back up your silly dismissals with something that looks like evidence.

Or, continue to pull an ostrich. That just makes you an atheist Creationists. One whose beliefs exist in direct contravenetion to available evidence that they will not even acnowledge and dismiss based on their faith alone.

 

Actually discussing those "evidences" would be a very long and involved process, and since it is off-topic for this thread (and any other thread you have brought it up in so far), I haven't gone into detail. But then I have, on more than one occasion, suggested starting a new thread to discuss it. You have chosen not to.

Never. Not once have I ever claimed atheism or agnosticism was anything other than the definition you pasted (that we have been referring to). I welcome you to find a single instance where I have.

And why shouldn't they? This is correct.

Very few atheists make the claim that they are absolutely certain that a god (again - small "g", generic god) does not exist. I'm am not one of them, I have never done so. I do not agree with that claim.

Here is some of that dishonesty we were talking about. I'll let you stew to figure out why on your own.

Straw man - more dishonesty. There is none, and I have never claimed otherwise. I have never said that I "know" a god does not exist, and I will be the first to admit that any atheist who does so is also being dishonest.

But what you refuse to understand, is that none is necessary. Atheism is nothing more than an absence of your claim that a god exists. As such, it is your burden to provide valid scientific evidence for that claim. So far, there has been none presented (yes, even including your link).

I told you, if you want to start a dedicated thread on your link, I'll participate to go into detail - I'm sure others will also. I'm not going to here, it's just too involved.

You seem to be confusing "objective" and "subjective". It is you who is not looking at your "evidence" objectively. You (and I mean that generically, you and other Christians) are the one trying to mold things to fit your preconceived beliefs and call it evidence.

The fact that some scientists believe in a god is irrelevant to the actual science that they perform.

Ok, I'll concede this one, since I was not clear enough. My point was that the only unifying concept that defines atheism and is shared between all atheists is "no belief in a god or gods". Anything else beyond that is individual and extraneous.

*Sigh*

I don't understand how you're still going on about this, I explained it from the start. The pasted definition was not what was dishonest. The dishonesty comes in when you do not use that correct definition when making your arguments regarding atheists.

Nope.

Well that's easy. A burnt piece of toast or an oddly shaped potato chip can validate a religious person's belief.

Misrepresentation. I don't "attack" all (most) theists. I only respond in kind to the one with whom I am responding. Therefore, perhaps you should look inward for an explanation to my tone.

That's interesting, you usually don't seem to have a sense of humor.

 

And finally after 79 posts, Blackrook finally catches up with everybody else in the thread.

Not your best performance.

 

Poes Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

 

Which myth you apply your creationist argumentation to is irrelevant, DBM aka FDS. It's still in support of creationism.

I couldn't care one bit.

 

You obviously do. If you didn't care there would be no initial post. You're not an idiot Freebee and you know it's all about Gaia with me. I didn't address you - you addressed me with some Creationist bullcrap. You know that post is ridiculous because you can apply it to anything anyone posts. So, if a Creationist says it – you’re in support of Creationism? I am pretty sure that you better be expecting to live by that ridiculous standard and pray that you never post anything that any Creationist has ever said. Including… guess what? Politics! Now, you live by the sword…

Did you know there’s Creationist that believe in ALL KINDS of stuff. This will be fun!!!

 

Trust me, I couldn't care less.

That's not how it works, DBM aka FDS. Ignoring, or at worst, distorting, reality for the sole sake of promoting ideas of special creation identifies argumentation in support of creationism.

 

Yea I don't believe you...

Not distorting!

Examples:
Oakland Raiders owner dies - a Denver Bronco fan says "Rest in Peace", and someone idiot says, "So, your a Raider fan now?"

A man walks up and pulls a gun on a couple and the woman says, "Oh God please save me". Then the man looks over and something retarded like, "So, you're a Christian now?"

I say something about Salinity, and someone states something ridiculous (you're not retarded or idiotic, but still wondering why you are posting such gibberish) like, "So, you're Creationist now... Or at least fighting for them or supporting them..."

UHHHHH - NO!!! Do you see the mistake? I gave examples. Please refrain from future mistakes please.

 

Nah, you parroted a well known assertion about the "beginning of this planet".

Care to guess who's in the habit of ignoring every phenomenon that refutes that particular assertion just to keep making it, and for what reason?

 

Easy. They're idiots.

1. They don't understand science.

2. They don't understand the bible.

3. They don't understand the law.

4. They make stupid statements and, then, get offended when this is pointed out.

 

Can you prove each of those claims as they would be applied to EVERY creationist and provide objective empirical proof in support of each of those claims?

 

There he goes again.

 

The scientific investigation of the Gaia hypothesis focuses on observing how the biosphere and the evolution of life forms contribute to the stability of global temperature, ocean salinity, oxygen in the atmosphere and other factors of habitability in a preferred homeostasis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Want more?

I kinda like you Freeware - you know where this will go... Just stop posting! You know you made a mistake - just let it go by trying to group me with Creationist. You're wrong - Just showed you and you know I am about Gaia...

Please refrain...

 

That could make for an interesting topic.

 

Yep! There he goes again. Challenging baseless claims.

 

That is an excuse. Pick one.

Again, you guys scream in multiple threads abiut evidence, we've started numerous threads about the evidence, and you guys skip them entirely or come in a bash Creationists like they are the lot of all religion.

Consider yourself called. Enough excuses. There is evidence, deal with it.

This is what you said.

This is my reply. Notice it comes WITH a quotation.

This is your response:

There was only one definition, the first post was that science proof thingy again, indicating once again that you did not read either one (hardly shocking).

And then you post this:

So, the definition I posted was just to insult you was it? And you've been screaming that I am dishonest the entire time since.

Are you even attempting to engage honestly?

Do you see how evidence works?

 

Bacteria live in the sea ! Responsible for most of the worlds oxygen production.

 

That still has nothing to do with Sea Salt.

 

Look at the Discovery Institute. That'll give a good idea as to why people laugh at creationists.

 

Look at this thread, and you'll see why atheism is sliding down the old trust scale.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html

 

I am of the opinion that this thread is flamebait, created to poke fun at those who happen to hold religious beliefs.

For that reason, it is now closed.