It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheist, why are you so offended at anothers display of faith?

page: 15
18
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Using words correctly is a prerequisite of efficient conversation.

Faith does not mean "gullibility", in fact it means faith.

I do find the faith in the origin of species being other species to be gullibility also, yet that's an opinion.




posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Prezbo369

I've been compensated for expressing my thoughts in universities, yes.

As have other creationists.


There you go again, answering questions nobody asked you because you have nothing else to say.....because you cannot show something, anything for your magical position




No, actually as a sane man I'd change my beliefs if they were contradicted by scientific discoveries.

However, theories claiming to contradict them do abound, as has been the case since my beliefs were first formed millenia ago.


This is obviously untrue and a lie, creationists work quite hard to create and conjure up faults and errors in accepted scientific theories that contradict their beliefs in magic beings with magical powers.

So once again you're unable to show anything new or even remarkable for the claims of magical creation and have the nerve to call other people's acceptance of evidence-backed theories as 'faith'.........very very typical...




posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Using words correctly is a prerequisite of efficient conversation.

Faith does not mean "gullibility", in fact it means faith.

I do find the faith in the origin of species being other species to be gullibility also, yet that's an opinion.



You know...2 words can have the same meaning.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Being stubborn can be good, but being psychologically rigid never can.

Your faith in your version of cosmology doesn't offend me one bit, but your repeated use of "lying" to describe my responses and "evidence, truth, & c" when referring to your own does.

It's actually what you're accusing creationists of doing, ironically enough.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Prezbo369

I've been compensated for expressing my thoughts in universities, yes.

As have other creationists.


There you go again, answering questions nobody asked you because you have nothing else to say....


I do believe that's called a strawman argument; it is an art & I'd appreciate it if you showed a little respect!



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BigScaryStrawman

A strawman is making the other party seem as if they said something they didn't.

I answered Prezbo's question from last page, which he phrased:




You're a Creationist 'scientist' aren't you? Whatever it is you do should surely produce something we can examine in the lab and reproduce and verify....no?


Therefore my response is not a strawman.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

No, two words do not have the same meaning; distinctions can be slight, but this one is fundamental to the argument I was responding to.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You weren't asked if you spoke at universities or if you were 'compensated' for it

As you quoted, I asked:



You're a Creationist 'scientist' aren't you? Whatever it is you do should surely produce something we can examine in the lab and reproduce and verify....no?


And you've produced.........nothing at all......you claiming to have been 'compensated' for talking at universities to other creationists is in no way what was requested (for the 8th or 9th time).

A typical strawman from a typical creationist, Kent and Ken would be proud...



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

You asked whether I am a scientist, which I am.

I have only worked for secular universities so far.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TzarChasm




The big explosion has been verified. Its not a matter of opinion anymore.


Thanks for your statement of faith, which is an opinion.


Le sigh...

Faith is believing things for no good reason, faith is for the gullible even in the face of evidence and reason to the contrary.

Faith is all you and other Creationist types have, you have no good reason to hold the irrational beliefs you hold, you cannot bring anything whatsoever to the table to demonstrate your beliefs to be accurate, you just know what you want to be true (Magic).

This is evident by the complete lack of substance you have brought to these boards, just like every other vapid creatonist.


in fact, faith is DO believing in something for GOOD reasons. medicine is the one that mostly makes me not want to believe in god...
edit on 22-3-2016 by Defecdoing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Prezbo369

You asked whether I am a scientist, which I am.

I have only worked for secular universities so far.


You cannot possibly be a scientist if you genuinely believe in creationism and that the earth is only a few thousand years old. You just cant. Not a scientist of any merit at least.

Thats like me becoming a priest even though im an atheist.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Great opinion there, just an addition:

comparing a scientist to a priest really shows how you view science, when science is actually something else entirely.

Dictionaries do help with this: science



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014




Not a scientist of any merit at least.


Merit also has a meaning that seems to elude you.

Among scientists of merit are a number of people who believe the world was made by God thousands of years ago, examples being a facetious way to demonstrate this.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol


Using words correctly is a prerequisite of efficient conversation.

Better learn how, then. Because your posts are a wasteland of neologism, malapropism, mangled syntax and failed communication.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax


I like your signature more than your original content.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014


You cannot possibly be a scientist if you genuinely believe in creationism and that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Oh, I wouldn't assume the claim is false. The 'science' is probably Young Earth creationism. Those university lectures referred to earlier are no doubt real as well: delivered from atop a soapbox outside the college cafeteria.

This is no Snark It's a real Mugwump we've got ourselves here.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Great opinion there, just an addition:

comparing a scientist to a priest really shows how you view science, when science is actually something else entirely.

Dictionaries do help with this: science


I didn't compare being a scientist to a priest. You missed my point entirely.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014





I didn't compare being a scientist to a priest. You missed my point entirely.



You cannot possibly be a scientist if you genuinely believe in creationism and that the earth is only a few thousand years old. You just cant. Not a scientist of any merit at least. Thats like me becoming a priest even though im an atheist.


Your point, as you call it, was that faith in the bible and science are incompatible, a notoriously false notion.
You have illustrated it by comparing a scientist to a priest.
I missed none of it.
edit on 35412v2016Wednesday by wisvol because: said so



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: namelesss
I use the definition in my preserved word of God for my understanding of faith and belief.

You have a jar of formaldehyde with some 'Word' in it, and the label proclaiming it is God's Word?
Family heirloom?
Get it on ebay?

Well, brother, "Knowledge = experience!"
Personal experience!
Reading 'about' something is a world of difference than actual personal experience, different then actual Knowledge!
So, since you are offering your ignorant 'reading about something', and I am sharing actual personal experience, I'd think that you would quietly listen and try to understand, if possible.
But 'believe' are ego, vanity, and that's what they do.


Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Yes, I have heard that predictable poetic Polly-wanna-crackerism before, from other people with no experience in the real thing, only vainly imagined concepts that they have garnered from books, or some belief infection caught somewhere along the line!

Perhaps someday you'll experience unconditional Love, and then you'll 'Know'! *__-



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss




Perhaps someday you'll experience unconditional Love, and then you'll 'Know'! *__-


Your kind of unconditional love? No, thanks

You'd think the Buddha wouldn't be such a prick.




But 'believe' are ego, vanity, and that's what they do.


You really believe that don't you?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join