The Faith of the Irrational has nothing to do with Religion.

Orffyreus
Orffyreus's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-12-29
User is offlineOffline
The Faith of the Irrational has nothing to do with Religion.

The FAITH of the IRRATIONAL has nothing to do with religion. 

I read sites like these and wonder who gathers the village idiots together? (Did you conscience convict you into thinking I was speaking of you?)

First off let me start out by saying "CHRISTIANS are the dumbest race on the planet!!" Yes I call them a race because they are!!!

Don't reply and show ignorance by revealing that you do not know the difference between a race and an ethnicity, you will be labeled the king of the village of idiots.

When people deny they christian faith but then use the same idiotic logic to define what they believe in, it reminds me of the dry drunks created by Alcoholics Anonymous. These people are DRUNKS plain and simple , it isn't a disease, that's a cop out used to allow people to blame something other than their own poor choices for the position they are in. They still have the behavior of a drunk, but no alcohol. Evolutionists have the same faith as christians but no God.

THE FAITH of EVOLUTIONISTS IS GREATER than any christian I ever met. (Because I have never met a christian that obeys the instructions written in the bible.) Faith in the imaginations of men who came before you.

AKA Darwin. For christians its the bible.

Evolution is not science, it is someone's GUESS. Followed by the added guesses of those who have believed the initial guess. Same as christianity, the guess of the current person is their interpretation of whats written in the bible.  Whats written in the bible is the guess of the writer.

I actually had an evolutionist  try and tell me whales have a leg bone and that proves evolution. All I can do is laugh my ass off and fall off my chair at that one. Because the whale has a bone in the proximity of where a leg would be if the whale had legs, IT IS LABELED A LEG BONE. How damn stupid do you have to be to believe this crap?   This logic also applies to the "TAIL BONE" in your ass. The coccyx is what it is called. But some evolutionists want to use the term tailbone to prove we used to have tails. I need to get some of whatever they are smoking. I can tell you that right now!!                

If you fancy yourself as a critical thinker then BE ONE!.  In my opinion the majority of atheists are that way because they are simply rebelling against what their parents believe. The person who does this would turn into a christian if the parents were atheists.

It has nothing to do with a thought process.

How did we get here on earth? The only TRUE and ACCURATE answer is . WE DO NOT KNOW!!!

You can choose to believe anything you want to.  Without facts though, ITS ALL FAITH. Facts do not include any type of guess. If it contains a guess (some use the word theory here) then it is no longer factual.

Like I said earlier "christians are the dumbest race on the planet" evolutionists are a close second.

I also have no need in someone replying who doesn't know the difference between the adaptation of a species to its environment and speciation. All speciation attempts results in sterile offspring.

Just because someone mislabels the theory (GUESS) of evolution as evolutionary science, it means NOTHING!

I have a hell of a lot more respect for people who are willing to say, " WE DON"T KNOW" than I do for people who make crap up.

I will give another example, The man who invented radio carbon dating stated that his method would not be able to date anything past 50,000 years old. Then someone else using his method came up with a date of 65 million years old.

This date has been accepted as fact, which it is not.

Opinions of people in the scientific field are not trustworthy at all because they will change their opinion in a heart beat and give an opinion contrary to evidence to keep with tradition. That's right scientists reject facts to support tradition, JUST LIKE CHRISTIANS.

I will give another example. A geologist walks into a large well known university and goes to the professor in charge of geology at that university. He hands him a photo of a rock formation and asks him, were these rocks worn down by water or wind. The head of the department, ( A SO CALLED SCIENTIST) looked an immediately without hesitation said these are water weathered rocks and hands him back his photo. He was correct, the FACTS are indisputable.

The man then flips the end of the photograph which had been folded behind the picture to reveal the head of the Sphynx in Egypt. The so called scientist IMMEDIATELY changed his mind, and said IT MUST BE WIND weathered rocks.

Instead of coming to the correct conclusion that egypt must have been wet in the past, he rejects the facts to support the tradition that Egypt has always been a desert.

This is how science REALLY works. If someone presents EVIDENCE that is contrary to tradition, the so called scientists will readily reject the evidence which is factual, in order to support the tradition. ( Imaginations of men who came before)

I do not trust opinions or guess of so called scientists. Show me facts, I will draw my own conclusion based on them.

When someone takes a sample to be dated with whatever method they want to use, the place doing the dating requires an application which includes a PRE guess of how old it is, where it was found etc. If dating methods were so accurate none of that information would be needed. 

Another example of scientific tradition is the ice core that was drilled in Greenland. Scientists said it was thousands of years old. But then another man steamed a hole in the ice and recovered ww2 planes that had been abandoned in greenland, and they were further down than the ice core that was SUPPOSEDLY thousands of years old.

I recall the total rejection of the idea that the planes were there until they recovered the planes. It is kinda hard to pretend to be a scientist and say these planes you are looking at do not exist. LOL

It was only after the recovery that SCIENCE (faith of the guessers) had to withdraw their first GUESS.

Science is not what many peole think it is. Facts are rejected continually in order to support tradition.

The Love of MONEY is the root of ALL EVIL!!!!  Send me 20 bucks to hear more!

( I am practicing to be a TV evangelist) HAHAHA

Happy New Year!!

SHOW ME THE FACTS!

NO GUESSES ALLOWED!

 


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Start here :  

Start here :   http://kids.yahoo.com/science

Graduate to this site: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_01

When you have a basic understanding of the scientific method come back and ask a well written question to answer whatever question you may have.

It seems your diatribe holds no logical rhythm.

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10738
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'd welcome you, but you

I'd welcome you, but you started off being an ignorant twit with less knowledge than the 6 year old next door.

"(Did you conscience convict you into thinking I was speaking of you?)"

Rephrase this into proper English so it makes sense.

Now, lets see...

1) Christians are not a race, by definition. Homo sapiens is a species, there are no divisions of it.

2) Evolution is tested fact. Trying to argue against it puts you alongside people who think the Earth is flat and that gravity is god pushing us down.

3) The scientific term "theory" does not equate to guessing. But you've already proven how ignorant you are.

4) Evil does not exist. Morality is subjective.

5) Your characterisation of science is laughable.

That seems to be it. Happy new year!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
There are no "facts" of the

There are no "facts" of the kind you are requesting.

The scientific method is about consensus along the lines of plausibility; based if what we might call "the philosophical spirit" - which again, in simple terms, means to suspend your judgment. This is the reason why a "theory" is the highest degree of "fact" you will find within science. Stating over and over in caps that WE DON'T KNOW! is tautological. We already know this. (Humorous paradox absolutely intended.)

However, we are all bestowed with the more or less employed talent of common sense. By virtue of which we can say to know some "facts of life", which are relative to us as human beings, but must not be confused with "absolute and undisputable facts". An example of this will be to state that if we stick our hands into boiling water, we will get hurt. Or the ever-so-lovely favourite of the morbid people; death is certain. In the context of common sense, we can establish that most humans are so alike that we can safely assume that when we all are able to observe the same phenomenon, this phenomenon is a "fact of life".

The problem with "believers" - no matter their chosen belief system - is that they think that all questions have answers. They think that they are able to understand. They are willing to pass judgment. They are essentially anti-philosophers that are prone to be dangerous because they muddle private emotions with logical thinking to the point of assuming that what is hardly a hypothesis can be accepted as "a private fact of faith" and thus serve as a motivator for choosing their line of action when confronted with various situations of some ambiguity.

 

I also wrote about this issue here: www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19276

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Renee Obsidianwords

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

Start here :   http://kids.yahoo.com/science

 

i think'us, therefore i roflol'ed

 

Very good one Renee

What Would Kharn Do?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Sounds like someone has a

Sounds like someone has a very poor understanding of science.

 

First off, just because any particular thing is a guess does not remove that thing from what we call science. Actually, the guessing bit is so important to the process that the reverse is far closer to reality. Specifically, if there are no guesses in the provenance of an idea, it probably can't be considered science.

 

Let me say that again just to make it clear: If nobody ever tried to guess about stuff, then science would not exist as we know it. What sets science apart from pure guessing is what comes after the guessing.

 

Lots of guesses don't bring us any closer to understanding reality. Actually, evolution is a great example of that as there were lots of wrong guesses in the development of what we call the modern synthesis. Such guesses have been tendered by Darwin's own grandfather Erasmus Darwin and Saint Augustine, among many others.

 

What set Charles Darwin apart from the others is that he wrote considerably more on the topic than most of those who came before him and that he drew from not just one or two sources but in fact divided his work into concrete sections based on his several sources.

 

In fact, his work was never fully accepted in his life time, but only decades later when more information had come in from a variety of differing sources such as the work of Gregor Mendel and Crick and Watson. Only then was it finally seen that Charles Darwin's work stood at the beginning of a whole process of scientific inquiry in a way that none of his predecessors could claim.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2407
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh dear boy.

 

 

        Offyreus you show a clear misunderstanding of science and the simpleist deffinition of the word FACTS.  I wager that this is your one and only post on this site,  (feel  free to prove me wrong)  we have seen so meny like-(empty)-minded before.  Has a televangilist we will be your biggist buggaboo, stupidity like yours makes such an easy target.  So with my sincerist reguards go take  a  long walk off a short pier, then eat shit and die and also to the horse you came in on.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
"I have a hell of a lot more

"I have a hell of a lot more respect for people who are willing to say, " WE DON"T KNOW" than I do for people who make crap up."

If the former is true why did you perform the latter?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Oh man. Orffyreus

Oh man.

 

Orffyreus wrote:


First off let me start out by saying "CHRISTIANS are the dumbest race on the planet!!" Yes I call them a race because they are!!!

Really i didn't know that.  Let me double check...

 

Race:

People who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock

A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution:

The term race or racial group usually refers to the categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics.[1] The physical features commonly seen as indicating race are salient visual traits such as skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture.

 

Dandanana, nope not a race dumbdumb.  Christianity is a religion, people of a certain religion are classified as such because they share certain beliefs.  Members of a certain race share physical and visible characteristics due to isolation/time/climate/diet/lifestyle etc.. 

 

Orffyreus wrote:

Don't reply and show ignorance by revealing that you do not know the difference between a race and an ethnicity, you will be labeled the king of the village of idiots.

Race describes biological descent. Ethnicity describes cultural heritage. Ethnicity is learned, race is inherited.

Orffyreus wrote:

Evolutionists have the same faith as christians but no God.

 Faith in the imaginations of men who came before you.

AKA Darwin. For christians its the bible.

This is a terrible comparison.  The bible is a collection of myths told to be taken as aboslute truth, darwins  theory of evolution was just that a theory he obsereved to be true, a theory that got tested over and over again by more and more advanced science in the last 150 years.  Evolution follows natural laws and therefor is a rational theory, the bible does not and therefor is an irrational guess at explaining our origins on the planet.  And further more we have no faith in darwin, we have understanding of science, you do not.  Darwin was a man, men are flawed, science is not, men make mistakes, the truth existst wheather we difine it properly or not.  Gravity pulls at the same level of g's weather we define it that way or as god pushing us down.  Science is the search for truth, good scientists should admit and share their errors/finding, only then can you find the truth.  We dont care about darwin, we care about the thousands and thousands of other scientists so much more inteligent and rational than you whos finding have been consistent with the theory.  Findings we can see, touch and feel, not stories told by primitive men.  Evolutionists DO NOT have faith in darwin, this old line is so moronic.   

Orffyreus wrote:

Evolution is not science, it is someone's GUESS. Followed by the added guesses of those who have believed the initial guess..

How does your foot taste.

Im done with this guy.  I'll leave em for the rest of ya...

 


Orffyreus
Orffyreus's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-12-29
User is offlineOffline
One clear mind responded

Hello Marquis,

I am glad you responded. I didn't know if there was actually anyone else on this site with sense. Of course the facts do not exist. That was my point. It is amazing the amount of replies trying to provide them though. Makes me laugh.

Sorry for the abrasive first post but it did serve the purpose of revealing the emotionally unstable who visit this site. I have no desire to talk with them.

I agree with your assessment in your final paragraph about believers thinking that all questions have answers they can understand.

Lets take a look at your humorous paradox. I have run across many many evolutionists cannot grasp this concept and in fact act and react like the believer, trying to provide a fact that doesn't exist.

So as you put it " We already know this" is actually not known by many. This is why people act and react in the manner of some of the replies to this thread. Critical thinking is not possible if one is emotionally unstable. Regurgitation is possible.

I will go take a look at your other article.

Happy New Year

 

 

 


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Orffyreus wrote:I have run

Orffyreus wrote:

I have run across many many evolutionists {SNIP} 

 

On your Big Wheel?

 

 

fail owned pwned pictures

 

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Orffyreus
Orffyreus's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-12-29
User is offlineOffline
To the emotionally unstable

I would like to thank each of you for revealing so quickly your emotional state to save me the headache tolerating your nonsense.

 

Happy New Year!!!


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
No need to thank any of

No need to thank any of us.

 

Now, please tell me exactly what you can about my emotional state.

 

~~~~waiting~~~~

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Orffyreus wrote:I would like

Orffyreus wrote:

I would like to thank each of you for revealing so quickly your emotional state to save me the headache tolerating your nonsense.

 

Happy New Year!!!

What emotional state are you reading from me? Are you interpreting my laughing my ass off at you as anger?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10738
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Sorry for the abrasive

"Sorry for the abrasive first post but it did serve the purpose of revealing the emotionally unstable who visit this site. I have no desire to talk with them."

Rofl. You are the definition of tool. The useless kind. One who must project his own failings on others, like your emotional instability. Fear not: You can ignore me, but I'll rip you a new one every time you post such stupidity. After all, you aren't intelligent enough to understand your massive blunders, but most who read our posts are. They'll see you as the laughing stock you are. Happy new year!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm sure I'm not the only

 

person who read this and felt bludgeoned by the worst of both worlds.

Intergalactic Mayflower, I need you...

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Orffyreus
Orffyreus's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-12-29
User is offlineOffline
Your emotional state

LOL

 

Nuff said


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10738
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yes indeed. You can go ahead

Yes indeed. You can go ahead and stop making an idiot of yourself any time now.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the

Welcome to the forum.

Although I suspect that you are a Christian pretending to be an atheist, I will respond to your OP under the assumption that you are an atheist who is honestly misinformed and plagued by poor logic.

Orffyreus wrote:
First off let me start out by saying "CHRISTIANS are the dumbest race on the planet!!" Yes I call them a race because they are!!!

The term 'race,' referring to 'races' of humans, isn't very well defined biologically. But, assuming that it was, Christianity could not be a race because it is not genetic.

Orffyreus wrote:
Evolutionists have the same faith as christians but no God.

There is more than enough evidence for the unifying theory of biology. No faith required. I am proponent of evolution because of the evidence that I have seen.

Orffyreus wrote:
I actually had an evolutionist  try and tell me whales have a leg bone and that proves evolution. All I can do is laugh my ass off and fall off my chair at that one. Because the whale has a bone in the proximity of where a leg would be if the whale had legs, IT IS LABELED A LEG BONE. How damn stupid do you have to be to believe this crap?

They were probably describing the bones in a whale's flipper.  

This isn't merely similar to a human hand. Oh, much more than that, we can match each exact bone in a human hand to the corresponding bone in a whale's flipper; the bones are merely stretched, compressed, etc. If you study bone structures of virtually all mammals, you will find that this is the case. This is also extremely interesting in the case of bats. Overall, it's strong evidence for evolution as it shows that natural selection adapts existing morphology to new tasks.

Orffyreus wrote:
This logic also applies to the "TAIL BONE" in your ass. The coccyx is what it is called. But some evolutionists want to use the term tailbone to prove we used to have tails. I need to get some of whatever they are smoking. I can tell you that right now!!

Yes, you could smoke what they're smoking. Or, you could look at pictures of tails.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny_ex4

http://embryo.soad.umich.edu/index.html

Orffyreus wrote:
How did we get here on earth? The only TRUE and ACCURATE answer is . WE DO NOT KNOW!!!

Evolution does not explain how we got here on Earth. It only explains the evolution of life.

Orffyreus wrote:
All speciation attempts results in sterile offspring.

Well, how about these?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And these?

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

Orffyreus wrote:
Just because someone mislabels the theory (GUESS) of evolution as evolutionary science, it means NOTHING!

You've fallen for one of the dumbest scientific misconceptions in the book.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/theory

A theory can be,

1) "an unproved assumption."

However, it can also be,

2) "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."

The fact that it is called a theory does not mean that there is no evidence for it. Have you ever heard of the theory of gravity? Atomic theory? Cell theory?

Orffyreus wrote:
I will give another example, The man who invented radio carbon dating stated that his method would not be able to date anything past 50,000 years old. Then someone else using his method came up with a date of 65 million years old.

Carbon dating cannot be used to date something to 65 million years old. It is not a matter of opinion; it is impossible.

Carbon 14, the unstable radioactive isotope, decays to nitrogen 14 with a half-life of approximately 5730 years. After extended periods of time, there is too little of the element to conduct the test.

Orffyreus wrote:
I will give another example. A geologist walks into a large well known university and goes to the professor in charge of geology at that university. He hands him a photo of a rock formation and asks him, were these rocks worn down by water or wind. The head of the department, ( A SO CALLED SCIENTIST) looked an immediately without hesitation said these are water weathered rocks and hands him back his photo. He was correct, the FACTS are indisputable.

The man then flips the end of the photograph which had been folded behind the picture to reveal the head of the Sphynx in Egypt. The so called scientist IMMEDIATELY changed his mind, and said IT MUST BE WIND weathered rocks.

Do you have a source for this?

Orffyreus wrote:
Instead of coming to the correct conclusion that egypt must have been wet in the past, he rejects the facts to support the tradition that Egypt has always been a desert.

What tradition? What are you talking about? It's been known among the scientific community for quite a while now that the Sahara was once full of vegetation.

Are you just making this up as you go along?

Orffyreus wrote:
When someone takes a sample to be dated with whatever method they want to use, the place doing the dating requires an application which includes a PRE guess of how old it is, where it was found etc. If dating methods were so accurate none of that information would be needed.

It's not needed. Who said it was?

Laboratories have done blind tests lots of times on artifacts of known age, and they always get the correct age. You clearly need to separate the truth from the lies that you've been told. 

Orffyreus wrote:
Another example of scientific tradition is the ice core that was drilled in Greenland. Scientists said it was thousands of years old. But then another man steamed a hole in the ice and recovered ww2 planes that had been abandoned in greenland, and they were further down than the ice core that was SUPPOSEDLY thousands of years old.

I recall the total rejection of the idea that the planes were there until they recovered the planes. It is kinda hard to pretend to be a scientist and say these planes you are looking at do not exist. LOL

It was only after the recovery that SCIENCE (faith of the guessers) had to withdraw their first GUESS.

Again, do you have a source?

Without a reference, I cannot check the validity and reliability of your examples.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare