GG. I forfeit.
Offline Good game you creationists. I forfeit. Game over. I'm done talking to rocks, banging my head against walls, and spending countless hours explaining how what you said was a big mountain of falacious attempts at logic. I'm done explaining how the big bang has nothing to do with evolution, explaining how proving a negative is impossible, and explaining what evolution actually is. I'm done explaining how the watchmaker argument is bad, how pascals rager is terrible, and how the fucking banana has evolved.
I'm done listening to you act persecuted and state that your religion is the most persecuted of all time, as if this is validates any bad thing your religion has ever done. I'm done listening to your evidence that consists of a book written by mad men on mushrooms living in caves on islands. I'm done watching videos that you claim will prove the existance of god.
You win. I forfeit. I don't concede that there is a god. I concede that your points can only be thought of as logical by somebody with a complex dilusional disorder fueled by terrible reading comprehension and spite for the rest of the world. I concede that you are beyond selfish. I concede that I'm done debating you.
I'm done. Creationists hold a stance of idiocy bolstered by the position that ignorance is better than knowledge. I'm done.
In fact, I'm so done that watching the Last King of Scotland has become more important than finishing writing this.
P.S. I'll openly debate those who don't hold a stance of willful ignorance.
P.P.S. Bite my spelling.
- Login to post comments
Nothing like accepting the truth that some people are just beyond your help. It's freeing, really.
Oh. I thought this was a tribute to GG Allin.
I think you must have been reading the same thread I was just reading.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
It's not? (Puts mop, bucket and super-industrial strength cleaning product back in closet)
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
You are my new hero. End of discussion.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
You've had a good run CrimsonEdge. I think we should all give up, but I've noted in post deludedgod's and others' persistence and patience with these people. If any of them now resorts only to copying and pasting old responses and editing them only to be consistent with the thread they're posting in, I won't blame any of them for not taking the time to post something original. How many times can any of us bash our heads against a brick wall? How many more creationists, or theists , will come here with the same old tired, tried, refuted, re-refuted, and inane arguments? Only time will tell, but I certainly think it's decent to withdraw from any arguments with any of these people. They should be redirected to threads that deal with exactly their argument and be told not post it again. What more can be said about any of the arguments we've come across? I don't think anymore can be added. I believe the job of the people here in dealing with creationist has been done most thoroughly.
Perhaps we should 'sticky' or 'staple' or whatever it is, on the main page a compilation of refutations to the most common arguments... wait, isn't there something like that already? (Seriously, is there?... There should be.)
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
How's that christian saying go? "God helps those that help themselves." Good ass covering christians.
I'm beginning to think that atheists can only help those that help themselves. Those theists that want to learn to think logically.
If I had wanted to remain an idiot I would still be a christian because I never cared to learn how to think logically.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I have noticed that debating online really gets us all nowhere fast. I honestly think they either don't read what we write them or they simply don't understand the words that we have shown them. If they have a warped view of evolution to begin with they are never going to understand. I have found that I have better luck debating them face to face. I know all of their so called arguments against evolution so it's easy to refute each one. Sometimes you have to take it step by step and explain it to them like a little child. Also a good idea is starting a debate out with ground rules such as, You give me a claim and If I cannot refute it or prove that it can happen with evolution then you win. If they agree you are in.
Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com
www.pathofreason.com
Check it out
I can't decide if simply hurling feces at creationists would be more or less effective than debating them.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
That or whoop and scream and leap about with your arms flailing in the air. Maybe perse your lips and puff up your cheeks while you're at it. Perhaps beat on your chest a little.
You can win the argument using their strategy and indirectly make a point about man's origins at the same time!
Two birds, one stone!
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
I know it seems like banging your head against the wall, but really when I debate someone like that I am not talking to them. I am talking to those who hear the debate, those willing to listen, because if I don't speak up, guess who's only words they are going to hear. Remember it is not about the debater, but the audience.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Yes, and like said earlier, it's silly to debate somebody who has 'made up their mind'... as if this was some sort of intellectual nirvana where only what you think is true counts.
I agree.
Just keep getting better at refuting. Though it is repetitive, its good practice. Sooner or later you'll be able to refute someone very easily and though they may refuse to except it, the clarity of your refutation will no doubt reach out to those who read your refutation and are not so dim witted.
For example asking yourself whats the nicest most easily understould effective way of telling some claim is irrational. Think it out, killem with kindness, and be clear. The theist will probably not benefit but as stated, its the people who read that are most likely to be effected.
I think you missed the point. The point was that it is impossible to debate people who think evolution should bring about crocoducks, that a banana wasn't shaped by man, etc. In other words, people who, no matter how much evidence, refutation, etc. will not change their minds.
Thus banging your head against a wall, talking to rocks, etc.
And i'm saying sure those people may be unreachable because they will not change their minds but that does not make argueing with them pointless or worthless(sure it sucks sometimes) because of what has already been said on this thread(to lazy to repeat).
Though you may not ever win an argument with a rock headed theist, it does not mean you lost.
Sure its frustrating...
But theres a chance that someone out there reading your shit will start thinking.
Thats what makes it all worth while isn't it?