"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Davidius

deise go deo wrote: »

One interesting thing I have heard though is that there is a book just after coming out based on disproving Evolution. Along with it the publishers are offering a 50,000 euro prise to anyone who can biologically prove that one species ever 'evolved' into another.

Why would you do that when you can just prove maths problems for (a) million(s)? And sure the great thing about the old maths is that you can actually prove it.

MarkY91

i do not beleive god exists..call me whatever you want i couldnt give a ****

deise go deo

MarkY91 wrote: »

i do not beleive god exists..call me whatever you want i couldnt give a ****

OK, I'm Gona call you Bob.
Hi Bob.:pac:

scientific1982

squod wrote: »

Richard Dawkins isn't he a mason?

Yep hes a 33 and a third degree mason. Its all an illuminati, freemason conspiracy. Dont be a sheep.

areu4real?

Took me three hours to read this thread. When I got to the end I noticed the tags... there are some crazy people in AH

age of friesian, aib is your lord!, atheism = darth vader, atheists eat babies, babies are delicious, circle jerk, created from, crud, darth vader is my god, darth vader was a hero, dawkinites vs religion , evolution caused religion, ezekiel 23:20, hail xenu!, is there a dog?, jebus saves!, jesus saves wit aib, just a theory, luke i am your atheist, mary=single mum, men are also bitchy, more atheism..., rhinosaurus, stamps, we are all bacteria..

efb

potterycourse wrote: »

Even carrots? Nice.

especially Carrots! All that Vitamin A!

Tar.Aldarion

I'm an atheist, I agree with evolution etc, I would never really bring them up though. It's like breathing to me, these are just accepted by me as what is the case currently, with all the evidence available to me.

Don't get how billions of small changes/mutations in a species can be easily accepted but these all added together with the end product species being very different to the original entity is not.

MrStuffins

OutlawPete wrote: »

Come on Liah, an apology would be the decent thing, don't you think?

You said:



.. and that my replies to him were ..



I have since however shown with quotes, that MrStuffins was NOT "fine" with other posters, here are those quotes:

















So, any chance of taking back that nonsense that he was "fine" with all other users on the thread and that there was "no apparent reason why he received the replies he did?

As I think from the above quotes, it was quite "apparent" why he received the replies that he did.

I won't even mention the fact that you accused me of saying someone was "sad" when I didn't, sure we'll just put that down as misunderstanding.

If that apology is forthcoming, I'd be more than happy to discuss the rest of the questions you raised in your post regarding evolution and just precisely what it is that I take issue with and also which parts of it that I do not believe has been proven, despite evolutionists worldwide declaring them as fact.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Lol at the posts you chose to quote, especially the "poopie-head" one and the "your ma" one.

Also you say:

OutlawPete wrote: »

As was I, but seen as you went to so much effort to cherry pick some of my comments and post them without context .

But then do EXACTLY THAT to me in the same post hahahaha!


Talk about scraping the barrell hahahahaha!

Brilliant!

If you have things to say to me, i invite you to take it to PM! Stop your continual derailing of the thread Pete! People are looking to actually have a debate, not listen to your continued vendetta against me!

Napper Hawkins

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Don't get how billions of small changes/mutations in a species can be easily accepted but these all added together with the end product species being very different to the original entity is not.

EDIT: Never mind, all nighter, brain work wrong at moment now.

Tar.Aldarion

YE

OutlawPete

MrStuffins wrote: »

Lol at the posts you chose to quote, especially the "poopie-head" one and the "your ma" one. Talk about scraping the barrell hahahahaha!

You were asked by a user:

orourkeda wrote: »

Has it been 100% proven and by whom?

Your response:

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yore Ma

That is not: "Scraping the barrell", it just proves that you were fully deserving of the replies you received.

MrStuffins wrote: »

If you have things to say to me, i invite you to take it to PM!

I have ZERO to say to you sir, zero.

The ONLY reason I have the misfortune of having to quote you is because is because I was accused of replying to you in an unwarranted way, of course I have now shown that to not be the case, so onwards and upwards as they say.

Now, please stop replying to my posts, thank you.

MrStuffins

OutlawPete wrote: »

You were asked by a user:



Your response:



That is not: "Scraping the barrell", it just proves that you were fully deserving of the replies you received.



I have ZERO to say to you sir, zero.

The ONLY reason I have the misfortune of having to quote you is because is because I was accused of replying to you in an unwarranted way, of course I have now shown that to not be the case, so onwards and upwards as they say.

Now, please stop replying to my posts, thank you.

HAHAHAHA!!

Oh you really do crack me up.

You complain about lack of context, but the "Yore ma" comment was obviously a joke! One accepted by the poster i was talking to at the time.

And you honestly think i'd call someone a "poopie-head" and be serious about it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Give it up Pete! You're really coming across badly now.

DOC09UNAM

I think everyone is coming across badly.

3 Things that never be discussed anywhere, sexuality, politics, religion.

God damn things always cause arguments.

MrStuffins

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

I think everyone is coming across badly.

3 Things that never be discussed anywhere, sexuality, politics, religion.

God damn things always cause arguments.

Dude, i realise that in some quarters i've probably come across badly here.

But one thing i've done is debate, i've not run away from it, i've answer questions put to me and i haven't been afraid to ask questions when i needed/wanted to. You've been here and you've seen it!

Some posters have not done this and instead have resorted to doing nothing but spending their entire time in the thread doing the opposite of what i've been doing whilst having a go at me because they don't like my views!

Napper Hawkins

I came across badly once.

I then paid my money and left.

MrStuffins

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

I came across a baldy once.

I then paid my money and left.

FYP :P

OutlawPete

Why are you still replying to my posts with bullshit?

MrStuffins wrote: »

.. the "Yore ma" comment was obviously a joke!

Where these condescending posts all jokes too:

MrStuffins wrote: »

Have you ever... i dunno... like...... learned about Evolution?

MrStuffins wrote: »

You can show these people over and over but they remain ignorant.

MrStuffins wrote: »

.. (got it this time Stu) that you are wrong, you pig-headedly refuse to take it back.

MrStuffins wrote: »

And you may be insulted by mt pig-headed remark, but it stands!

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm sorry, you have to be trolling! There is no way i'm having THIS conversation hahaha!

Trolls used to be so much better back in the day!

MrStuffins wrote: »

It's ok, God is supposed to forgive us is he not?

Sure he loves me.

AND i have loads of creationists praying for me since they heard i don't believe in God!

So, where they?


Yeah, didn't think so.

Now, if you're serious about not derailing the thread, then just quit replying to my posts.

Thanking you.

Napper Hawkins

MrStuffins wrote: »

FYP :P

Actually that's spot on there Stuffy, please forgive my atrocious spelling.

MrStuffins

OutlawPete wrote: »

Why are you still replying to my posts with bullshit?



Where these condescending posts all jokes too:













So, where they?


Yeah, didn't think so.

Now, if you're serious about not derailing the thread, then just quit replying to my posts.

Thanking you.

All perfectly fine posts within the context of the conversation Pete, as you well know.

And what's all this "yeah, didn't think so" business? You like to pose questions and then answer them yourself?

You know quite well you've been the condescending one in this thread from the very start. It's been pointed out to you and you don't like it!

So again, if you want to talk to me, feel free to do it through PM. if you reply to me here, i will do the same. Stop telling me not to reply here if that is how you choose to communicate with me after more than one invitation to take it to PM, it's ridiculous!

Lu Tze

MrStuffins wrote: »

Dude, i realise that in some quarters i've probably come across badly here.

But one thing i've done is debate, i've not run away from it, i've answer questions put to me and i haven't been afraid to ask questions when i needed/wanted to. You've been here and you've seen it!

Some posters have not done this and instead have resorted to doing nothing but spending their entire time in the thread doing the opposite of what i've been doing whilst having a go at me because they don't like my views!

In fairness you havent exactly covered yourself in glory in this thread. You are stating that evolution is irrefutable fact and comparing it to gravity among other things. Evolution, while i agree with the premise, much like gravity, i think we (humanity as a whole) are far from knowledgable on the actual workings. much like gravity.

There are more questions than answers raised by these things, and while it fits and makes sense, in 100 years time i fully expect there to be a completely revised version of it as more and more is know.

Just like with gravity, the gravitational constant - where did that come from? Its just a number that fits. And lo and behold, its not a constant at all most now believe. Nobody understands what variables this arbitrary number is filling, but its isnt the same across the known universe, and indeed gravity may act in a bizarre manner elsewhere in the universe.

There is so much about these scientific theories which are unknown, that it doesnt help your cause when you ridicule anybody who questions it.

There is a reason these things are still being studied (other than attempting to adapt them for some practical purpose).

OutlawPete

MrStuffins wrote: »

All perfectly fine posts within the context of the conversation Pete, as you well know.

Referring to users as "pig-headed", "ignorant", "trolls" and then mocking their religion to suggest that they are in fact praying for you, is not "perfectly fine", far from it.

MrStuffins wrote: »

So again, if you want to talk to me, feel free to do it through PM.

I don't want to talk to you

I want to stop being a condescending atheist.

Which very aptly brings us back on topic.

I'll tell you something, say what you wish about me, but a lot of the atheists in this thread, Liah included - have done a lot to rescind the OP's points that all atheists are condescending, but you my friend, have done nothing but reinforce them.

MrStuffins

Lu Tze wrote: »

In fairness you havent exactly covered yourself in glory in this thread. You are stating that evolution is irrefutable fact and comparing it to gravity among other things. Evolution, while i agree with the premise, much like gravity, i think we (humanity as a whole) are far from knowledgable on the actual workings. much like gravity.

There are more questions than answers raised by these things, and while it fits and makes sense, in 100 years time i fully expect there to be a completely revised version of it as more and more is know.

Just like with gravity, the gravitational constant - where did that come from? Its just a number that fits. And lo and behold, its not a constant at all most now believe. Nobody understands what variables this arbitrary number is filling, but its isnt the same across the known universe, and indeed gravity may act in a bizarre manner elsewhere in the universe.

There is so much about these scientific theories which are unknown, that it doesnt help your cause when you ridicule anybody who questions it.

There is a reason these things are still being studied (other than attempting to adapt them for some practical purpose).

I can't exactly remember, but i don't think it was I who compared it to gravity?
I compared it to the Heliocentric Theory alright!

If i in fact DID compare it to gravity, then i apologise.

But i stand firm in my stance that Evolution is a FACT!

Perhaps we don't know the whys, but there is much more evidence than needed to be able to prove that Evolution has been taking place for millions of years, is there not?

MrStuffins

OutlawPete wrote: »

I'll tell you something, say what you wish about me, but a lot of the atheists in this thread, Liah included - have done a lot to rescind the OP's points that all atheists are condescending, but you my friend, have done nothing but reinforce them.

Well, it is only yourself, the OP and a couple of others who are arrogant enough to think that they can speak about "All Athiests" as if they fit into some sort of racial or ethnic group.

You, on many occasions, have said "They" this and "They" that.

Someone who is trying to come across the way you are should know better than to make such ridiculous generalisations!

TheUsual

Dave! wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that evolution does not explain the diversity of life on display today should feel free to explain why, because there's a nobel prize waiting for you Evolution is the basis for modern biological science ("nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution"), so if you were to suddenly whip that carpet out from under everybody then you would almost certainly get a nobel prize for it (and you get a million dollars or so out of that).

However please save the conspiracy theories about how science is closed-minded and would just suppress any contrary opinions, etc. Science changes all the time and if there is good evidence for something then a consensus emerges. If you ignore the evidence, then you'll quickly find yourself marginalised and your credibility will go to sh*t.

Unfortunately (for the dissenters), there is a huge body of evidence, from completely seperate fields (DNA vs. fossil evidence for example), and they all converge on the same idea: that all modern life evolved from simpler organisms over millions of years.

Ha ha ha. 20,000 posts and still such an idiot.

OutlawPete

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well, it is only yourself, the OP and a couple of others who are arrogant enough to think that they can speak about "All Athiests" as if they fit into some sort of racial or ethnic group.

It's called 'speaking in generalities' and while we may not like it, stereotypes exsist, usually because they have some basis.

At the moment, the stereotype of atheists is not very good and the first word that would spring to mind, would be: condescending.

Don't you speak generally about religious fundamentalists perhaps?

Are you trying to tell me that you have not used the terms: "They" this and "They" that?

MrStuffins

OutlawPete wrote: »

It's called 'speaking in generalities' and while we may not like it, stereotypes exsist, usually because they have some basis.

Only if you are arrogant enough to believe you know who "they" are, or "all athiests".

As it stands, you realy don't. Your eagerness to bring Richard Dawkins into the conversation spoke volumes to me (and others)!

And yes stereotypes exist, but one should also be smart enough to know that Stereotypes are bullsh1t and should not be fed! But what you chose to do here is to cling onto your idea of what Dawkins in like and fly off the handle!

And all the while condescend to people in the thread.

OutlawPete

MrStuffins wrote: »

Only if you are arrogant enough to believe you know who "they" are ..

Laughable, just because I use the word "They", to describe 'condescending atheists', does not mean I have to know exactly who each individual one is, what a remarkable piece of illogic

Of course, MrStuffins would never speak in generalities, of course not, he wouldn't be so "arrogant".

So it wasn't you that posted this then?

MrStuffins wrote: »

But Creationists don't get it!

They're so used to having an answer for everything, that if you as a non-Creationist don't have an answer to everything, you are wrong.

About as hypocritical as you can get.

Listen, call me and others users arrogant as much as you like, call users pig-headed and trolls also if that's what you wish to do, but just quit replying to my posts, it's boring.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Your eagerness to bring Richard Dawkins into the conversation spoke volumes to me (and others)!

Not that it even matters a jot, but I NEVER once tried to bring Dawkins or anything that the guy said, into this debate!

Sure, I mentioned the guy's name on the thread and each time it was in a DISMISSIVE fashion - to say that 'condescending atheists', all tended to have a boner for the guy, were sycophantic towards him and should go masturbate to his books.

I even posted a video making fun of him!

So why are you trying to make out that I was "eager" to bring him into the debate, your clutching at straws now.

Quit while your behind.

MagicMarker

Aww, Pete, I'm hurt. Both myself and Sam have addressed your questions and you've ignored our posts to continue bitching and moaning.

Any chance you can answer my question now? Or are you going to continue just ignoring anyone who poses questions to you?

sponsoredwalk

Just like there is so much obvious proof for evolution, we now have irrefutable
proof that outlaw pete only comes here to derail the thread and continue
talking about this extremely boring personal issue he has & are subjected
to watching him save face by resorting to new lows. Just like he denies
evolution - I think (he hasn't actually mentioned anything specific yet) - he will
possibly deny the evidence he's spamming in here despite the fact that
the last 10 or so since yesterday posts of his have simply been attacking
McStuffins.

Pete, I asked you what your issue with evolution is, I told you not to
accept anything but to throw all your concerns out at us but you
still want to continue telling us the other guy is bad yada yada yada...
I just want you to know that we see it, it's so boring and we don't
care, didn't you say something about evolution?

AudreyHepburn

Greentopia wrote: »

Straw man. By jumping to such extreme conclusions you are not refuting a position that I've ever seen taken by any of my non-believer friends either IRL or various internet fora I'm a member of.
Please quote me some atheists who say they want to get rid of churches, monasteries, abbeys chapels etc., who want to cancel xmas, Easter and so on, who would stop people wearing crosses on their necks, and the rest of your points.

If you want to see very secular countries where religion is a predominantly private matter yet have not gone to the extremes you mention here of destroying religious building, icons, preventing people from practicing their religion freely I suggest you take a trip to any of the Scandinavian countries.

While Sweden for example (the country I'm most familiar with) does have Lutheranism as a state religion which most people are by default members of and pay tithes to unless they opt out, most ethnic Swedes don't practice any religion (immigrants being the exception, especially from Muslim countries).

It is one of the most secular and irreligious country in the world (as well as one of the most democratic) with over 80% of the population either agnostic or atheist, yet freedom of religion is guaranteed and there are no policies such as you describe to proscribe religion or persecute religious people.

Nope no straw man at all. If you want religion to become really truely a private thing that people only do in their own homes and stop it from being , as some would see it, forced on people through books, media, schooling, iconigraphy etc than all the things I mentioned would have to happen.

I did admit what I said was extreme because the point I was trying to make was that making it completely private in the way I feel many mean is akin to persecution.

To be fair if Lutherism is the State and default religion and everyone is automatically part of it at birth with even the parents making the choice that is not exactly keeping it private is it?

And the churches are in public and are public places are they not?

I wager if you tried to bring in a law here that said every child is a Catholic at birth whether they want to be or not and you have to pay tithes unless and until you decide to leave the Church there'd be uproar.