Suit over national day or prayer dimissed...

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Funny that none of them are here to point out how obviously wrong I am. Wonder why? There is a circular "argument" that you invented out of thin air with more holes than the condom the dog used on your mom the day you were conceived. If that is your only "argument" by all means go on considering yourself a super genius while the rest of us sit back and make hilarious quips at your expense.

Probably because everyone here knows its fruitless to argue with someone of your... ineptitude. They just don't even bother. I do, because quite frankly I come to this site to argue. I'm not even a particularly religious person, I just get a little tired of all the bullshit that atheists like to drag up. If you don't think that they persecute the religious every bit as bad as the religious hound people to mend their ways, then you really are blind. Ok yeah, so maybe YOU don't. But your new best friend (or was it alias..?) racecardildo is one of them that just can't seem to quit crying about it and like one of your posts in this thread, I'm just tired of hearing about it so I finally lash out and go looking for a fight. As for making "hilarious" quips at my expense, I don't think its possible for you to understand how little I care. Like I said, I come here to do this. I enjoy this. So please come up with more of your little quips. I like reading them. I really don't think its possible for me to ever actually give a shit. Cause I mean lets be serious... I don't even know what any of you look like.

Yeah keep sucking cock. He'll maybe he'll come defend your pathetic little self in all your arguments here.

I deleted my first post after I saw you actually responded, and I'm forced to point out again: the plaintiff's argument has nothing to do with atheism. Do you see why using the logic they present against atheists in general is indefensible yet? The discussions don't depend on each other, making an assault on atheism born out of your opinion of the plaintiff's opinion a simple ad hominem fallacy. It don't hold water. I don't have to address the beliefs of atheists as a whole, or my own, for your position to be invalid. Your invalidity is independent of those two things. I can try and repeat myself in a different way, if you like.

Yeah so can I. Try to repeat myself in some kind of different way. But, I don't think I will. If the logic presented against atheists is indefensible, unfortunately the exact same would have to apply to the opposite point of view, I'm afraid.

[YALE]

Yeah so can I. Try to repeat myself in some kind of different way. But, I don't think I will. If the logic presented against atheists is indefensible, unfortunately the exact same would have to apply to the opposite point of view, I'm afraid.

Fuck it, I'll try again. The plaintiff is an atheist, but all atheists aren't being represented by this suit, so whatever the complaint is against the plaintiff's line of reasoning, they don't automatically apply to that of all atheists. I can give you a description of a Venn diagram if you want, but the gist is this: All A's are B's, but not all B's are A's. Draw a big circle, then a smaller one inside, mark the little one, "A," and the big one, "B." "A," represents any singular atheist, which for the purposes of this argument, we'll make the plaintiff. "B," represents all atheists everywhere. See? They have their view of what it means to not believe in god, and they share that lack of belief with all other non-believers, but they don't represent all non-believers by simply proclaiming disbelief, or even proclaiming that they speak for all non-believers. That would be like the Pope's belief that he speaks for all theists holding water. Any one theist doesn't represent all of them.

[racrguy]

I fixed your post for you (posting for dummies). And if that is the video you're using for your post, you STILL haven't answered the initial question I posted. Where did that "mass" come from? You can post your religious beliefs on what happened to the "mass," but you STILL haven't answered the only thing I questioned. I will wait patiently.

Right, but his thought process requires proof or he doesn't believe (atheist), so where is his proof? Mine is based soley on faith, so I'm good with what I believe.

We we can BELIEVE that matter was just there one day? Remember, I'm trying to see this from an atheist's point of view. SO if they are truely consistant, they could not have any opinion unless it is backed by some factual evidence. If not, the ATHEIST must BELIEVE in something that hasn't been proven (just like me).

And you guys try to label Christians as hypocrites... LMAO!

So, you're saying you know where it came from? Prove it.

The big bang theory doesn't touch on where the initial mass came from, we don't know. But that doesn't mean we won't know sometime in the future. At least it's a better position to have than "My magical friend in the sky made everything, everywhere. I don't need to question it." Keep on going through life enjoying the fruits of what science and technology has brought you while you and stanleytweedle continue to think from the dark ages.

[Denny]

So, you're saying you know where it came from? Prove it.

The big bang theory doesn't touch on where the initial mass came from, we don't know. But that doesn't mean we won't know sometime in the future. At least it's a better position to have than "My magical friend in the sky made everything, everywhere. I don't need to question it." Keep on going through life enjoying the fruits of what science and technology has brought you while you and stanleytweedle continue to think from the dark ages.

You are so totally not getting anything from this discussion.

I believe in Creation, as told by the Bible, through my faith in God; not requiring proof. You are evidence-driven, so I simply asked you where that "mass" you BELIEVE blew up came from. Since you're driven by evidence, you should have any answers I pose in regards to this subject. Wasn't it you wanting to school me on this? How can you believe in this bang because of all this evidence if you don't have all the answers?

If you're going to argue, at least come on here with something more than returning my question. I gave you mine. I believe what the Bible says about Creation based on my faith. That is the one thing that really gets non-believers is that I don't require physical evidence. You, on the other hand, cannot back your BELIEFS to save your soul (pardon the pun).

[racrguy]

You're free to believe what you wish, but you know you're incorrect in your beliefs.

And the big bang theory came about after the Doppler effect was observed in the universe. You see, it's a natural progression of things. We see x, and try to find out what caused it, then we find that out, and then we try to find out what caused that. It's a never ending cycle.

But at this point the conversation has become God v. Science instead of Theism v. Atheism. One can be a theistic scientist.

[Denny]

You're free to believe what you wish, but you know you're incorrect in your beliefs.

And the big bang theory came about after the Doppler effect was observed in the universe. You see, it's a natural progression of things. We see x, and try to find out what caused it, then we find that out, and then we try to find out what caused that. It's a never ending cycle.

But at this point the conversation has become God v. Science instead of Theism v. Atheism. One can be a theistic scientist.

I'm just going to do one last facepalm and go on my merry way. Jeez...

[YALE]

You boys play nice, now.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Fuck it, I'll try again. The plaintiff is an atheist, but all atheists aren't being represented by this suit, so whatever the complaint is against the plaintiff's line of reasoning, they don't automatically apply to that of all atheists. I can give you a description of a Venn diagram if you want, but the gist is this: All A's are B's, but not all B's are A's. Draw a big circle, then a smaller one inside, mark the little one, "A," and the big one, "B." "A," represents any singular atheist, which for the purposes of this argument, we'll make the plaintiff. "B," represents all atheists everywhere. See? They have their view of what it means to not believe in god, and they share that lack of belief with all other non-believers, but they don't represent all non-believers by simply proclaiming disbelief, or even proclaiming that they speak for all non-believers. That would be like the Pope's belief that he speaks for all theists holding water. Any one theist doesn't represent all of them.

Uh.. ok the.. plaintiff is the... what now? I assume your talking about the people who were the subject of the original post. So, you should know I'm not like a lawyer or anything. And I see what you're saying now though. They don't represent all atheists. Fair enough. So it seems that I need to clarify that I'm only actually attacking the blatantly retarded atheists, just the same way I'd attack the blatantly retarded religious zealots. Ok yeah, so you're one of the smart ones. But you have to look at guys like racecarjackoff. Just look at his last post to denny. He says something about "Just know that your beliefs in the magical man in the sky are incorrect" or something like that. When for all he knows, that magical man in the sky is staring at the back of his head right now. He just can't seem to grasp the concept that his "science" fully accepts the possibility of a god, it just wants proof. And that according to science a god would not be "magic" or "supernatural". It would be natural, if proven.

So now, we come to this. He represents a very large portion of atheists. I realize that there are actually different types of atheists, but going by the literal definition of an atheists, it occurs to me that if you get down to it, technically, there is only one type. So perhaps another term better describes the "atheists" that you would represent. On the other hand though, racecardickhole is what he appears to hate. Its really sad.

[YALE]

Everybody's allowed to be wrong, dude. I think the danger lies in letting being right get in the way of conducting yourself honorably. The same logic I applied to your opinion could be applied to his. I still love y'all both like family members we don't talk about at thanksgiving.

[stevo]

You're free to believe what you wish, but you know you're incorrect in your beliefs.

And the big bang theory came about after the Doppler effect was observed in the universe. You see, it's a natural progression of things. We see x, and try to find out what caused it, then we find that out, and then we try to find out what caused that. It's a never ending cycle.

But at this point the conversation has become God v. Science instead of Theism v. Atheism. One can be a theistic scientist.

Where did the stuff that caused the 'big bang' come from? What was there before the 'big bang'?

I think that is what he is trying to get you to answer and that you keep missing.

Stevo

[exlude]

We we can BELIEVE that matter was just there one day? Remember, I'm trying to see this from an atheist's point of view. SO if they are truely consistant, they could not have any opinion unless it is backed by some factual evidence. If not, the ATHEIST must BELIEVE in something that hasn't been proven (just like me).

And you guys try to label Christians as hypocrites...

Could the existence of matter and conservation of mass not be evidence that it has always existed in some form? It sure isn't inherently an argument for a creator.

Creation theory is a theory afterall, Denny. So of course it involves some beliefs to fill the gaps between evidence. One large diference between the religious and scientific argument is that for one side, beliefs are weaknesses in understanding and something to learn about while for the other side, beliefs are a strengthening affirmation of faith. The point of these arguments isn't about who believes in what, it's about the lack of evidence or contradicting evidence to one side's belief.

[Denny]

Could the existence of matter and conservation of mass not be evidence that it has always existed in some form? It sure isn't inherently an argument for a creator.

Creation theory is a theory afterall, Denny. So of course it involves some beliefs to fill the gaps between evidence. One large diference between the religious and scientific argument is that for one side, beliefs are weaknesses in understanding and something to learn about while for the other side, beliefs are a strengthening affirmation of faith. The point of these arguments isn't about who believes in what, it's about the lack of evidence or contradicting evidence to one side's belief.

That is why someone trying to figure it out for himself will fail 100% of the time.

[exlude]

That is why someone trying to figure it out for himself will fail 100% of the time.

Very well may be true in terms of creation or universal origins but it doesn't make it a fruitless persuit to study it and try to figure it out. Hell, this argument has driven much of today's theoretical physics. But I digress.

[Denny]

Lol

[exlude]

Once you figure out that god is not a topic to be scientifically studied, it becomes a much less interesting argument. Science in a pure sense simply does not study the metaphysical. Maybe physical implications of the metaphysical. Now who wants to argue the bible or evolution?