Dear Atheists

You Atheists always say "we just appeared magically on the face of the earth."

Do you not find the irony in that comment? Which takes more faith, the belief that God created us or that the earth "Magically" appeared and we happened to evolve over millions of years from non-living organisms?

In the end we will all find out who is right and who is wrong. I win either way. You on the other hand, do not.

I wish you and your eternal salvation the best.

Atheists, where were you 5 billion years ago or even 6000 thousand years ago? God designed and created all things and loves all you ignorant humans who think you have all the answers with your pseudo-science. You pseudo-scientists change your mind every time the wind blows. You can't reproduce what God through Jesus has done and you can't accurately explain much of it either!

Unlike you pseudo-scientists, the Holy Scriptures do not lie. They are inspired by God and do not contradict themselves. It's our feeble attempts at times to understand all the wonderful things that God has done that is contradictory.

the belief that God created us or that the earth "Magically" appeared and we happened to evolve over millions of years from non-living organisms?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, both equal.
But we both know you are not asking for that... So let's rephrase.
the belief that an <i>ANTHROPOMORPHIC</i> God created us or that the earth "Magically" appeared and we happened to evolve over millions of years from non-living organisms?
I'll go with the "magic," even though this is an extreme straw man.

On a side note, how do I <i></i> stuff?

>>4
Just replace the <> with []

REDCREAM'S GAIDE 2 4MATTING 4CHAN POASTINGS

BBCode on 4chan (also ref. TGML (a.k.a. S3KR1T K0DZ)):

[b] bold: bold
[i] italic: italic
[m] courier: courier font
[o] overline: overline
[s] strikeout: strikeout
[u] underline: underline
[sup] superscript: ^superscript
[sub] subscript: _subscript
[code] preserve spacing and literalize tags: "Let's talk about the [m] tag!"
[br] break:

[spoiler] hides text unless mouseover: spoiler

Use the [code] tag for ASCII art.

Quote codes:

> This is the quoted material.

... looks like this:

This is the quoted material.

The ">" quote code is only used at the beginning of a line, and also stacks up to 3 deep with spaces between them:


> > > Lick my balls.
> > NO U!
> The both of you can STFU!

... looks like this:

Lick my balls.
NO U!
The both of you can STFU![/b]

₁₂₃4⁵⁶⁷

>>5,6
Excellent, thanks.

how do I monar it lol

>>1

Shut your ignorant cuntish mouth, you trolling religio-fag. Atheists don't claim that "we just appeared magically on the face of the earth." Read up on scientific theories (assuming your permitted to read such 'profane' writing). If I were a Jew I would sue you for libel, making up such fictional quotes and for the record atheists hold their beliefs based upon REASON not 'faith'. Faith, by definition is blind- like YOU. As far as your religious scripts go, they are the definition of contradiction (perhaps you should try reading them).

>>10
tsk

I dislike the notion that my own worth is defined by some unseen figure you can't prove exists

I dislike the notion that my own worth is defined by some Dawkins whose worth you can't prove exists

>>13
Doesn't need to be based on Dawkins or any other person.  The entire problem with religion is that people look to things and people outside of themselves to find meaning and value in their lives.

>>1
>>2
Obvious troll is obvious. Nobody in their right minds believes this.

>>15

WELCOME TO AMERIKKKA

>>10

Such foul mouthed abussive behaviour is out of order and uneccessary. You really aren't helping the image of atheists.

>>11

Nonetheless, this angry ranter may have an underlying point to what he/ she is saying. Also, there are countless religions in the world which all claim that [i]they[i] are the 'correct' religion and that [i]their[i] god is the true one. According to various polytheistic religions, the number of existing gods varies greatly- so who is right? My view on the matter is that as an atheist I simply believe in one god less than monotheists. Can you really criticise self-rightous atheists (such as Dawkins) when nearly all religions hold such self-rightous beliefs?

>>2

"You pseudo-scientists change your mind every time the wind blows"

- Not true. Science has very gradually evolved over hundreds of years and who exactly are these self-contradicting 'pseudo scientists'? Are they the same as the constanly self-contradicting pseudo philosophers, which call themselves "theologists" or "priests"?

>>17
You really aren't helping the image of atheists.
Thanks for stating that we're a group, asshole, when a distinction is to be made from Leftist atheists, who in reality believe in Marx as their superior being.
I simply believe in one god less than monotheists.
And Christians simply believe in one god more than you do then. Oh wow.
Can you really criticise self-rightous atheists (such as Dawkins) when nearly all religions hold such self-rightous beliefs?
Yes, because he's, for the most part, preaching a discredited straw man of 1930s version of evolution. He's a failure as a scientist and hence a hero to the Left.
Science has very gradually evolved over hundreds of years and who exactly are these self-contradicting 'pseudo scientists'?
I can name some. Lewontin, Gould, Boas, Rose and Flynn. You could also check any peer-reviewed journal of your choosing to see people random people disagreeing with each other. The shock!
"We owe almost all our knowledge not to those who have agreed, but to those who have differed." — Charles Colton (1825)
Are they the same as the constanly self-contradicting pseudo philosophers, which call themselves "theologists" or "priests"?
Not the same, but the same type. A more advanced type of trolling.
Also,
constanly
theologists

>>18

Indeed that was stupid of me to imply that atheists are a 'group' with any definite set of beliefs- that wasn't my intention at all. No need to call me an asshole though, quite frankly- keep it civilised please. Did you assume that im a Marxist or something from that? On the contrary, im a British conservative. To be fair on the left wing atheists, they quite obviously DON'T revere Marx as some form of superior being (nor any other figure divine or otherwise).
Is Dawkins really a 'hero' to these people? How did you conclude that? Can you prove this please? While I do not agree with much of what these aforementioned discredited individuals have stipulated there is no avoiding the reality that religions were never 'credited' in the first place. The point of my argument is not to launch a personal attack on any theists or religious group of any form, but to point out that those religious individuals who created this thread cannot criticise Dawkins supporters for believing in discredited dogma, when they themselves believe in such questionable dogma. Its hypocrisy. And yes indeed my last sentence was vicious trolling and for that I apologies.

>>19
Sorry about calling you an asshole, but it was in a tongue in cheek mode, for feeding arguments to the Christfags.
Did you assume that im a Marxist or something from that?
Nope.
To be fair on the left wing atheists, they quite obviously DON'T revere Marx as some form of superior being (nor any other figure divine or otherwise).
When asking a libfag about anything involving anything, they will answer, almost foaming at the mouth, that every possible issue is of a 'socio-economical nature.' I meant, they worship his teachings, Buddha-like. Meanwhile, they claim to be on the side of science.
Is Dawkins really a 'hero' to these people?
Ever seen 'Invisible Sky Magician' on /n/? Ever seen who goes to public conferences with Dawkins around? Come on, this is the left-wing MO, kick people while they're down... they love Dawkins just because of his arrogant character.
religions were never 'credited' in the first place.
Neither discredited. The paradigm shift happened with no evidence for atheism, not because no evidence is due, but because there can't be any evidence. It's unfair for an appeal to authority. No one will ever have proof for/against anything.
cannot criticise Dawkins supporters for believing in discredited dogma, when they themselves believe in such questionable dogma.
Dawkins has written a book called 'The God Delusion' ... since there are no arguments for/against god, and pretending it's a first glance at the guy I can only assume he is incurably autistic.
Let's not even touch on the science, since I'm better off reading R A Fischer's work from the 30s than Dawkins' screeds. And get a more correct view.
Fuck, have you ever read some of his peer-reviewed articles? This obnoxious cunt has the same tone as when he's trolling Christfags. I can only forget his being in academia when looking at sociologists failing to do simple correlations.

Indeed- I just read up on him a bit more over the internet: sad little man eh?...Nontheless I would definately have to agree with you based upon what little Im now finding out about Dawkins. As far as the left-wingers are concerned, I can only account for the Socialists/ Communists that I've met (or whatever they refer to themselves as). Got to admit, it would be funny to imagine them all sat round a shrine of Marx or Engels (and yes I know you don't do that lefties, so please don't be offended). I think I had better read up on people a bit more before I start defending them in future. Peace-out everyone. 

>>21
Well, to be fair, I don't think Dawkins is a left-winger. But he is their superhero, fighting against religion and that(his being their superhero, of course)'s enough for me to dislike him, heh. He also fought against Gould and some other left-wing scientists some time ago and got shit from them, but just out of his dogmatism to be honest.
My problem with him is mainly as a scientist though. I don't really care that he's a media whore (don't know if the media came to him or he came to the media though) and that he dislikes Christfags (and I still don't understand why anyone would bother to write books against them, and even less why one would read them).
Don't know if he's a sad little man, he seems to enjoy his crusades, LOL. Yeah, like creationism is ever going to get past peer-review. Ever.

Common sense doesn't lead us to God. God was created by men.

>>23

gb2/bed/ Feuerbach, nobody wants you!

>>22

After reading all of Cocks' posts I almost forgot that the purpose of this thread was to discuss religion. It never ceases to amaze me, how right-wingers and stormfags always manage to turn every thread into an anti-left (and often anti-democratic) bigoted rant. You claim that liberals worship Karl Marx- Wtf!?! Liberalism is and always has been a centrist movement and as for Marxists, well you've clearly never met any.

"Well, to be fair, I don't think Dawkins is a left-winger": -No he isn't, nor is he a 'left-wing' superhero. He may be an icon to LIBERALS, but most left wing groups dislike him as much as anyone else, as they realise what a complete joke of a 'scientist' he really is.
"I can only forget [Dawkins'] being in academia when looking at sociologists failing to do simple correlations": -Indeed, that’s nearly as bad as the way that you fail to understand simple word definitions (trying looking up Marxism and Liberalism, as you may find that they're slightly different).

"[libfags] claim to be on the side of science": -a typically conservative attitude, which assumes that there are definite contrasting 'sides' to all arguments (perhaps this reflects the right-wings simplistic, reductionist way of thought). Are religion and science totally incompatible?

No Athiest claims that life appeared "magically".  The "magic" bias is in the ear of the religitard, who cannot conceive of a godless universe.

No magic is required -- just matter, energy, and good ol' thermodynamics.  But religitards reject science education to begin with (since objectivity is godless) hence they can't even begin to understand how matter and energy self-organize to produce ANYTHING, much less life.

RELIGITARDS PWNED.  And that's how it should be, since religitards are basically retarded.  Religion itself is best described as a MENTAL ILLNESS.

>>26

Indeed, religion well and truly is simply a crutch for the weak minded. They believe themselves to be intelligent thinkers, just because their beliefs are unfalsifiable. Well guess what guys, any retard can create an unfalsifiable 'philosophy' because its the easy cop-out alternative to creating one which is OBJECTIVE.

I am hereby starting my own religion, which states that anyone who dissagrees with me is a 'demon' and as such, I will never have to listen to any of those wicked Christians/ Muslims/ Hindus etc, with their ungodly ways. I will purposely design every claim made by my religion to directly opose all other religions claims and if you ever attempt to critise me I will play the Christo-fag "Im being persecuted" card. I shall even create a religous book, which I can quote from mindlessly every time I enter a philosophical debate.
For example when religi-tards counteract the claims of science, due to the word of Jesus/ Muhamed etc; I shall contradict the religi-tards, by saying- "ah but the word of science has to be true because my [insert arbitrary prophet here] says so". So as you can see theists- TWO CAN PLAY AT THAT GAME.

Religious discussions are pointless and boring. If you feel the need to discuss religion any further than the following 2 points

1: God can do whatever the fuck it wants, defy logic, allow evil things and be good at the same time, whatever.
2: God is a metaphysical concept that cannot be proven by science.

you need to commit suicide without hesitation.

>>25
You claim that liberals worship Karl Marx- Wtf!?!
Yes. Well, his philosophy. Same shit.
Liberalism is and always has been a centrist movement and as for Marxists, well you've clearly never met any.
Here is one now, amirite? Liberalism is a centrist movement? Oh, really? You are derived from the fucking Frankfurt school. Perhaps this is an awkward eurofag v. amerifag definition issue though, if you don't understand what I'm saying.
nor is he a 'left-wing' superhero.
Yes he is. And it has nothing to do with science. It has to do with his fighting religion.
but most left wing groups dislike him as much as anyone else, as they realise what a complete joke of a 'scientist' he really is.
Sorry, of course, he constantly makes fun of people who still believe in Lamarckianism and that people can magically change.
that’s nearly as bad as the way that you fail to understand simple word definitions (trying looking up Marxism and Liberalism, as you may find that they're slightly different).
Try looking up the Frankfurt school.
Are religion and science totally incompatible?
Of course not. All you have to do is say 'Marx put stupid niggers to test my faith in human equality.'

>>25
And just for a sample:
http://www.google.com/search?q=+site%3Awww.revleft.com+dawkins

I know what the Frankfurt school is and I clearly fail to see your point. Liberalism and Marxism are not the same thing (by anyones definition). They may have similar views on certain matters but they are not by any means the same. As far as the liberalism thing goes, then yes you are right- we are obviously just going by different definitions I guess.
"Marx put stupid niggers to test my faith in human equality": So you don't like black people- what does that have to do with any of this conversion? Did you just feel like randomly venting some of your racist anger?

P.S. for the record im a British Social democrat (Brit-fag variety being different to euro-fag variety), who supports Keynesian economics, so im anything but Marxist.

>>31
I know what the Frankfurt school is and I clearly fail to see your point.
Let's just say it's directly the missing link between modern liberalism and Marxism. So to be more exact, modern liberalism is a branch of the Marxist religion.
Liberalism and Marxism are not the same thing (by anyones definition). They may have similar views on certain matters but they are not by any means the same.
True. So?
As far as the liberalism thing goes, then yes you are right- we are obviously just going by different definitions I guess.
I think we're on the same page, considering
P.S. for the record im a British Social democrat (Brit-fag variety being different to euro-fag variety), who supports Keynesian economics, so im anything but Marxist.
You're what I call a liberal. Or did you mean you're not a liberal, but a Social Democrat?
"Marx put stupid niggers to test my faith in human equality": So you don't like black people- what does that have to do with any of this conversion? Did you just feel like randomly venting some of your racist anger?
If I didn't like Black people I'd have said niggers and not stupid niggers, obviously. Stupid niggers are by default, er, stupid.

Fine, maybe instead of liberals shall we use Cultural Marxists or Neo-Marxists?

>>1
only creationists believe we just appeared on the planet, retard.  now go troll elsewhere.

♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘
WHITE MAN HORSE PLAGUE
♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘

>>31
>>32
You both suck.
It's just that Americans have a warped definition of liberalism since the US didn't have any great liberal thinkers before 20th century.
US: liberals = left wing fags
REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD: liberals = free market dudes
Well, because of the strong American influence there're now "social" liberal parties popping up everywhere who try to sell their old left wing AIDS under a new name.

I love how a discussion can start with a completely pathetic troll and end up with a decent debate about the definition of liberalism and how it varies depending on nationality.

>>26

I thought most atheists claimed that we don't know how life originated for sure AND that the different theories on how it originated including magic should be judged based on observed evidence of their correctness.

I've never heard an athiest advocate for magic as the origin of life on earth. Science, yes. Magic, no.
What the hell have you been smoking?

HOLY FUCK ReaLY?!?!?!

>>38
I'm an atheist and advocate magic.
Prove magic wrong.