Where do atheists come from?

[Apollonaris]

That is very effective usage of childish shouting, but it doesn't address your principal problem, namely ignorance of context. You can provide a clip of quotes all put together to argue a certain thing, just the same as you can take a sentence and shorten it to make it seem like it's saying something else, but the fact remains that in both cases you are either purposefully misleading your audience or merely are too stupid to know the difference.

Right, because you're not restricted by a pesky thing like having to provide evidence to prove your claims. You exist beyond the material world in a dimension of faeries and pixie dust.

You might accuse me of anti-Semitism by pointing out that Cline is Jewish, but what you are doing in making said accusation is ignoring the contextual relationship between Hitler and Jewish writers, a context I was hoping might educate and inform you. Unfortunately, the benefit of the doubt was wasted on a petulant child in this case.

I'm not accusing you of anything. You pointed out that Cline was Jewish, not me. Or have you already forgotten? Did you forget to take your medication grandpa?

You are inventing things to discredit your opponent rather than defeat him.

I'm not inventing anything. You've discredited yourself by failing to provide any evidence to refute anything I've said.

How old are you? 15? 17? Why don't you go back to doing homework and let the grown-ups do the debating here.

Who's being petulant now? Tsk, tsk. That's no way to behave grandpa.

As you will learn as you go through high school and college, it doesn't take a telepath to perceive manipulation and propaganda, only an intelligent and educated person.

Sure, grandpa. I guess in college you can talk out of your ass and not have to provide any evidence to prove your claims either, right? :mmmm: Why do I get the impression that you have no idea what you're talking about?

I see you are developing a fine mastery of sarcasm. Typically this is more effective if you develop the necessary intelligence and repertoire of rhetorical methods and logical fallacies before deploying. You'll learn over time, or just become another of the brainless masses that men like Hitler so easily manipulated and continue to manipulate, convinced of your own freedom and intelligence.

Yeah, because it takes great intelligence not to have to provide any evidence to prove a truth claim and to blame the Jews when you're called out on your inability to do so. I guess that must make you some kind of genius or something.

Anyway, you've been amusing to tear down, but children are only entertaining for so long. I suggest you go back to MySpace or Facebook or whatever other teenage haven you crawled from and stop negatively affecting the average IQ of these boards.

Yeah, it's awful getting pwned by a little kid, eh grandpa? Run along old man, I think it's time for your nap.

[Raskolnikov]

Antisemitism originated with Christianity. Sorry to have to break it to you. Hitler's pseudo-scientific beliefs in no way make him any less of a Christian.

Everything you say could be derived from Yahoo answers.

[Apollonaris]

Everything you say could be derived from Yahoo answers.

Doesn't make it any less of a historical fact if it was.

[Magister Eckhart]

Everything you say could be derived from Yahoo answers.

I had a similar thought. He's either a child or a troll, in either case I don't think he deserves any more attention from anyone intelligent.

Returning to the topic at hand, I think a lot of what I've already said has hinted at it, but ultimately atheism as we know it today is a product entirely of the "Enlightenment". I might go as far as to say that unbelief on the level at which it is currently held was impossible before this period of godlessness and the worship of science.

[Quasimodem]

So if isn't ' proven ' and you're believing in these theories isn't that dogmatic and oxymoronic?

No, because science can only say what's more likely and less likely based on our current knowledge. For example, you can't say for certain that if you jump off a very high building you'll fall to your death due to gravity (maybe the laws will change inexplicitly), but would you just as readily jump as not jump? Would be "dogmatic" to hedge your bets on what's obviously the most likely scenario? Of course not.

Returning to the topic at hand, I think a lot of what I've already said has hinted at it, but ultimately atheism as we know it today is a product entirely of the "Enlightenment". I might go as far as to say that unbelief on the level at which it is currently held was impossible before this period of godlessness and the worship of science.

Thank Gawd for the Enlightenment.

[Turkey]

Gawd

(not wanting to take away from your argument by besiding the point but) How do you spell 'god'?

[Quasimodem]

(not wanting to take away from your argument by besiding the point but) How do you spell 'god'?

E-R-I-C C-L-A-P-T-O-N

[Neanderthal]

No, because science can only say what's more likely and less likely based on our current knowledge. For example, you can't say for certain that if you jump off a very high building you'll fall to your death due to gravity (maybe the laws will change inexplicitly), but would you just as readily jump as not jump? Would be "dogmatic" to hedge your bets on what's obviously the most likely scenario? Of course not.



Thank Gawd for the Enlightenment.

Don't give me cheap crap, i'm not talking about things that can be proven, these are called facts. Sure you can throw a fucking watermelon off a building and prove gravity indeed exist, i'm talking about scientific theories that can't be proven, like the big bang, black holes or the evolution (we were Niggers, then Mongo-Whites then Whites, yeah right); Believing in those is being dogmatic. Get it?

[Quasimodem]

Don't give me cheap crap, i'm not talking about things that can be proven, these are called facts.

No. “Things that can be proven” are called mathematical theorems, and you can only prove something by deductive reasoning. Since justification for scientific ideas is evidence gathered by inductive reasoning, it’s impossible to prove a scientific theory.

Sure you can throw a fucking watermelon off a building and prove gravity indeed exist, i'm talking about scientific theories that can't be proven,

The principle of “when you drop something in a gravitational field, it will fall” is unprovable because we arrive at that conclusion by inductive reasoning (it’s happened every time we’ve tried it). For all we know, the next time you drop the fucking watermelon it may hover for a few moments and then smack you in the head, but that outcome is very, very unlikely given our current knowledge about how things work. Science can never prove anything, but can only say what’s more likely or less likely.

like the big bang,

If you’d like, just say the word and I’ll be happy to educate you about all the evidence for the big bang.

black holes

If you’d like, just say the word and I’ll be happy to educate you about all the evidence for black holes.

or the evolution (we were Niggers, then Mongo-Whites then Whites, yeah right);

If you’d like, just say the word and I’ll be happy to educate you about all the evidence for evolution.

Believing in those is being dogmatic. Get it?

“Believing in” something that has mountains of evidence in favour of it is “dogmatic”?

[Neanderthal]

I'm just interested in evolution, so can you please tell me how did Cromagnids diverged from Leptosomic Negroid types? I'm eager to hear your response.