thehomer:

Yes so? Does that mean a star sat down in a garden and made someone from the sand it found lying in the garden?

Please let us not be ridiculous. If an ancient book says we are made of dust and discusses the subject with poetic imagery, well garnished with allegories and the like, that goes to style: it does not take away the fundamental fact that the ancient book was right when it said we were made of dust.

Please understand that the means of expression is very important when reading ancient manuscripts. Understanding was vastly more limited and they could only express as best they could. If a bushman unexposed to civilization today sees an helicopter, he will describe it as a giant dragon fly with spinning wings and a roar like a lion. If it is a helicopter gunship, he will add that the dragonfly spits fire from its nostrils.

The bushman actually would not have told a lie: he is only expressing what he saw according to the limits of his knowledge.

However the skeptic will say that the bushman did not see any such thing and that he must have hallucinated or fantasized, because no such thing exists.

But the truth is that helicopter gunships exist.

Hope you catch my drift.

toba.:
I dont think my post depicts atheism being evolution even though atheists tends to cling more to evolution as a strong basis for their belief in the existence of no deity.

Atheism it self has similarities with christianity and judging by the activities of atheists on this forum, this cant be argued too much

Language on parade.
logic upside down.
Toba, I admire how you cleverly juggled words to produce the above higlighted sentence, all in an attempt to show that athiests believe in something, the exixtence of no god. Clever , but fraudulent.

Wouldn't it have been better to say that athiests do not believe in any god, rather than saying " athiests believe in the existence of no god "?..


I just cant stop laughing.

Deep Sight:

Please let us not be ridiculous. If an ancient book says we are made of dust and discusses the subject with poetic imagery, well garnished with allegories and the like, that goes to style: it does not take away the fundamental fact that the ancient book was right when it said we were made of dust.

You really need to actually sit down and read the book and be consistent in your application of what is written in it. The book also explicitly says that someone sat down and made someone else out of sand. You cannot just wave that away as poetic imagery and fixate yourself on dust.

Deep Sight:
Please understand that the means of expression is very important when reading ancient manuscripts. Understanding was vastly more limited and they could only express as best they could. If a bushman unexposed to civilization today sees an helicopter, he will describe it as a giant dragon fly with spinning wings and a roar like a lion. If it is a helicopter gunship, he will add that the dragonfly spits fire from its nostrils.

Do you think the writers understood anything about the origin of the species? Do you think they knew about microbes?
If based on that description, other members of his tribe go around venerating all dragon flies thinking that they can all at some point in time roar like lions or spit fire from their nostrils, would that be correct?

Deep Sight:
The bushman actually would not have told a lie: he is only expressing what he saw according to the limits of his knowledge.

Would it be wrong if someone else thinks actual dragon flies can do that?

Deep Sight:
However the skeptic will say that the bushman did not see any such thing and that he must have hallucinated or fantasized, because no such thing exists.

But the truth is that helicopter gunships exist.

Hope you catch my drift.

Your drift is far off course. The skeptical member of the tribe would say dragon flies cannot do that when they consider the size and abilities of the dragon flies they know.
Besides, it seems as if you don't know that there are people who literally believe the words of the Bible. Would you say they're simply wrong or lying?

plaetton:

Language on parade.
logic upside down.
Toba, I admire how you cleverly juggled words to produce the above higlighted sentence, all in an attempt to show that athiests believe in something, the exixtence of no god. Clever , but fraudulent.

Wouldn't it have been better to say that athiests do not believe in any god, rather than saying " athiests believe in the existence of no god "?..


I just cant stop laughing.

dude where are u from?


whats the difference between some who believes that there's no and someone who doesnt believe in god? pls honest response

I wonder what inconsistencies madam ishilove is trying to reveal about evo. While I am not a fan or opponent of evo I stil find it hard to believe the abrahamic account of how we got here. Madam ishilove failed to show us the inconsistencies but succeded in publishing articles written about evo in the 60s and 70s, how pathetic. Unlike religion Science is dynamic so it is sheer ignorance to use scientific findings of as little as 5yrs ago for things in contemporary period. Milk chemistry, tear analysis...... what on earth are those. Today we have DNA analysis which has helped humanity in no small means. DNA has been used to solve criminal cases, helped exonerate innocent people who had been formally convicted of crimes they knew nothing about. That DNA analysis says we are 99.5% similar to chimps yet madam ishilove would prefer to use milk chemistry because it says there are flaws in evo theory. Pls before you go ahead to start debunking scientific facts try reading up what the most recent findings about the subject are so you will be better equiped to make sound arguments. One more ...... all scientists are not atheist and all atheists are not scientists. Some of us here reasoned our way out of religion before ever trying to know how science says it could have been.

This is what atheism is......

This is what we stand for

[img]http://gracenews.files./2008/04/blank-pamphlet.jpg?w=396&h=472[/img]

frosbel: [img]http://gracenews.files./2008/04/blank-pamphlet.jpg?w=396&h=472[/img]

Irony.


You fail to realize that your pictures debunks any notion of an evangelical atheist.



You debunked yourself

FXKing2012: Proponents of theories of evolution are merely agents of the devil and are completely dumb. How come humans evolved from apes yet we are far more intelligent than all other animals? What were they doing when we were developing our intellect? How come only apes transformed into humans? Why didnt other animals transform into humans or even other types of intelligent being?
It amazes me how someone cld be so dumb as to accept evolution theories and deny God. They are quick to believe and accept evolution theories which can not be proven yet they refuse to believe in God. Nincompoops!

Ooh you're an agent of God and clearly bright yet you ask questions that have been resolved but due to your deep willful ignorance, you refuse to actually look around for the answers.
To tell you again, humans are apes. Your other questions are based on such a poor understanding of the theory of evolution that all one can do is to advice you to read an article on the theory in a trusted encyclopaedia first before you try to ask these questions.

thehomer:

Ooh you're an agent of God and clearly bright yet you ask questions that have been resolved but due to your deep willful ignorance, you refuse to actually look around for the answers.
To tell you again, humans are apes. Your other questions are based on such a poor understanding of the theory of evolution that all one can do is to advice you to read an article on the theory in a trusted encyclopaedia first before you try to ask these questions.

Humans are apes

Very interesting!

Please, apes are what?

Freksy:
Humans are apes

Very interesting!

Please, apes are what?

apes are humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutangs and the newest genus, FREKSIES!

Martian:

apes are humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutangs and the newest genus, FREKSIES!

There is undeniably something in the human which is absent in every other animal known to this earth: and you know it.

Deep Sight:
There is undeniably something in the human which is absent in every other animal known to this earth: and you know it.

Whatever it is, it is present in Freksies and monkeys and donkeys and dolphins and elephants and octopuses......and you know it

Martian:

Whatever it is, it is present in Freksies and monkeys and donkeys and dolphins and elephants and octopuses......and you know it

Lie to yourself. And you know it.

Martian:

Whatever it is, it is present in Freksies and monkeys and donkeys and dolphins and elephants and octopuses......and you know it

Aside, i should mention that this statement is frankly stu.pid.

Deep Sight:
Aside, i should mention that this statement is frankly stu.pid.

It was meant to be stu.pid...... maybe it wasn't meant to be stu.pid........maybe I don't care. lol

Freksy:

Humans are apes

Very interesting!

Please, apes are what?

Apes are animals.

Deep Sight:

There is undeniably something in the human which is absent in every other animal known to this earth: and you know it.

Sure there is. And there is something present in elephants that is absent in every other animal known to this earth.

thehomer:

Sure there is. And there is something present in elephants that is absent in every other animal known to this earth.

you're trying to be deliberately obtuse here. You obviously know deepsight was talking about a soul.

thehomer:
Sure there is. And there is something present in elephants that is absent in every other animal known to this earth.

The guy makes all these trite statements, thinking he's "deep" but the only people he can affect are those of similar "spiritual" mindsets; then he calls the replies stu.pid when they are only mirroring his silliness.

Hell, I could say there is "something inside Octopuses that is "absent in other animals" because I saw a documentary that showed how adapted they are to their environment,but that doesn't mean that the statement means anything profound.

Martian:

The guy makes all these trite statements, thinking he's "deep" but the only people he impresses are those of similar "spiritual" mindsets, then he calls the replies stu.pid when they are only mirroring his silliness.

Hell, I could say there is "something inside Octopuses that is "absent in other animals" because I saw a documentary that showed how adapted they are to their environment,but that doesn't mean that the statement means anything profound.

Again quite daft. Deepsight was making a valid point. Humans have the remarkable ability of all animals on earth to possess a unique form of cognitive intelligence that animals lack. For example... do elephants have a moral code of conduct?

davidylan:

you're trying to be deliberately obtuse here. You obviously know deepsight was talking about a soul.

He's been deliberately dense

davidylan:

Again quite daft. Deepsight was making a valid point. Humans have the remarkable ability of all animals on earth to possess a unique form of cognitive intelligence that animals lack. For example... do elephants have a moral code of conduct?

Do I look like an elephant or even a zoologist? How would I know if elephatns have a "moral code" or if they even need one?
But elephants have been observed while "mourning". I don't know if this means they also have that "something that is absent in other animals" but present in humans. lol

Also, while humans have "cognitive intelligence", snakes can smell with their togues, Octopuses can blend into their environment, Kangaroos have different teats for each joey etc.
Point is, while Humans have the intellect, they also lack other phsysiological characteristics that make other animals "unique". So y'all can circle jerk all you want about the "intellect" that makes you special, other animals also have attributes that make them "special.

Don't you have another insult apart from daft? Just try something else. lol

Ishilove:
He's been deliberately dense

Jesus is not pleased with your language.

davidylan:

you're trying to be deliberately obtuse here. You obviously know deepsight was talking about a soul.

No I don't know that he was talking about a soul. In fact, what you mean by "soul" may be different from what Deep Sight would mean by "soul" if it is what he was talking about.

Besides, is that what you think differentiates you from other animals?

davidylan:
For example... do elephants have a moral code of conduct?

who has a better "moral code"? Elephants........or Chimps? do dogs have objective morality? What is the moral code of Dolphins?

Maybe Elephants don't need a moral code to be "moral", unlike humans who need to codify morality , in order not to kill each other.

Martian:

Do I look like an elephant or even a zoologist? How would I know if elephatns have a "moral code" or if they even need one?
But elephants have been observed while "mourning". I don't know if this means they also have that "something that is absent in other animals" but present in humans. lol

Also, while humans have "cognitive intelligence", snakes can smell with their togues, Octopuses can blend into their environment, Kangaroos have different teats for each joey etc.
Point is, while Humans have the intellect, they also lack other phsysiological characteristics that make other animals "unique". So y'all can circle jerk all you want about the "intellect" that makes you special, other animals also have attributes that make them "special.

Don't you have another insult apart from daft? Just try something else. lol

that was the question deepsight was posing but of course you simply overlook it in favor of a meaningless one-sided rant.

Martian:

The guy makes all these trite statements, thinking he's "deep" but the only people he can affect are those of similar "spiritual" mindsets; then he calls the replies stu.pid when they are only mirroring his silliness.

Hell, I could say there is "something inside Octopuses that is "absent in other animals" because I saw a documentary that showed how adapted they are to their environment,but that doesn't mean that the statement means anything profound.

Of course. That is why I prefer it when people simply say what they mean rather than expecting others to guess at what they have in mind. This is an online discussion not a game of charades.

Martian:

who has a better "moral code"? Elephants........or Chimps? do dogs have "objective" morality? What is the moral code of Dolphins?

Maybe Elephants don't need a moral code to be "moral", unlike humans who need to codify morality , in order not to kill each other.

Might that be why elephants have been known to kill each other? If you have no argument its better to stop being desperate.