Atheism - The Final Frontier

Originally posted by randyvs

X

So if he wants to believe in unicorns, so be it.

I'm suppose to take you people serious ?

edit on 30-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

On a side note, the bible mentions unicorns no less than seven times.
Just sayin...

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Along with giants, demons, dragons, angels, magicians, witches, miracles but the condescending attitude in Xs reply isn't exactly subtle. So that's the only reason I cop an attitude with certain questions.

Anee 's right, in not responding to any of my posts. As I recall, she loves to respond in ridicule and got hammered back pretty solid. Like Drummer says, I'm not a bad guy. X ? I'm whatever you want me to be.
I refuse to take anyones crap that's all. Sorry to who ever dosn't like it, but I would expect nothing less from any of you ! I do make a conscious effort never to hold a grudge tho.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Along with giants, demons, dragons, angels, magicians, witches, miracles but the condescending attitude in Xs reply isn't exactly subtle. So that's the only reason I cop an attitude with certain questions.

Correct. I only pointed that out as an aside.

Like Drummer says, I'm not a bad guy. X ? I'm whatever you want me to be.
I refuse to take anyones crap that's all. Sorry to who ever dosn't like it, but I would expect nothing less from any of you ! I do make a conscious effort never to hold a grudge tho.

Well, I understand you're passionate about your beliefs. But I think we can both agree that there's ways to discuss things that are more productive than others.

Originally posted by randyvs
Annee 's right, in not responding to any of my posts. As I recall, she loves to respond in ridicule and got hammered back pretty solid.

What a load of BS.

If I was the only poster that said the same things about you - - then your claim would have validity.

I'm not - it doesn't.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by randyvs
Annee 's right, in not responding to any of my posts. As I recall, she loves to respond in ridicule and got hammered back pretty solid.

What a load of BS.

If I was the only poster that said the same things about you - - then your claim would have validity.

I'm not - it doesn't.

I'm not privy to whatever exchange lead Randyvs to say such a thing. But his claim seems inconsistent with the nature of your posts that I have seen.

Originally posted by randyvs
I refuse to take anyones crap that's all. Sorry to who ever dosn't like it, but I would expect nothing less from any of you ! I do make a conscious effort never to hold a grudge tho.

That sounds good but care to point out the crap that I dished that started this exchange?

My first post on this thread read:

Why did he give signs to many in the OT so that they would know but now it's against his will to be bothered for a little proof.

I'm sure your answer is that he has his reasons. If it works for you then fine but don't honestly it doesn't do it for me.

Your reply was:

I never expect the fallacy of the request for proof to cause any ones eyes to open. I suppose it could serve as an alarm you might hear faintly, in your slumber.

I'm just really tired of atheism playing with a toy that dosn't belong to them. It isn't that hard to smack 'em and take the ball away.

This of course was followed by the posts that I previously asked you about but you seem to be avoiding.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm not privy to whatever exchange lead Randyvs to say such a thing. But his claim seems inconsistent with the nature of your posts that I have seen.

Yep. My posts tend to be short/blunt to the point - without embellishment.

I am human and can't say I haven't been pushed to "expression". But - it certainly isn't my norm

Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by megabytz

 

Once again Atheist trying to take Science hostage, when science is nothing but elaboration of the creation. If you say science disproves GOD, then prove the disprove.

Thus far, I've seen no one make the claim that they can disprove your "God". Again, this burden of proof (as I'm sure has been said 100 times) lies with you sir, not the atheists. I'm not sure however, how you think YOU are going to prove God exists when no one before yourself, over the course of billions of years mind you, has been able to do so?

If I say science proves GOD, I'll tell you something about the nature of the Universe which science has revealed, for example the lack of randomness. Obviously random doesn't need conscious intelligence, but determinism does, just like the computer you are using right now to make your posts.

There is not a lack of randomness, only your persistent claim that there is. Genetic mutation is random. Random in the sense that it happens by accident via an error in molecule replication during cell division. There is no guiding force, no divine hand, no 'God'. Genetic mutation explains the reason why you and I may have different colored eyes, why our hair is a different color, why we have different blood types. It is a testable, verifiable, natural occurrence that happens....randomly.

Of course, I will add that genetic mutation is ONE aspect of Natural Selection which is not random by any means. However, alone, GM is random.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm not privy to whatever exchange lead Randyvs to say such a thing. But his claim seems inconsistent with the nature of your posts that I have seen.

I have noticed that randyvs talks like he has owned a bunch of people on the ATS but I have yet to see him actually do it.

In my case, in this thread, he keeps saying I ridiculed his belief but has yet to show where I did this. Followed by:

It's always my opposition that screams bloody murder when they feel ridiculed though. See you're not use to people from my side of the fence who can throw. So it scares the willy little nillys out of you when you run into someone who hits with prejidice. Stop crying, I been pretty light on you.

Funny thing is that he usually doesn't add anything but assertions of how well he has proven his point when in fact he hasn't. I was sitting in my living room enjoying a cold beer when I read that. Nothing he could have posted was gonna mess with my chill. What does he think this is the matrix. "If you die on the ATS, you die in the real world".

Originally posted by daskakik
What does he think this is the matrix. "If you die on the ATS, you die in the real world".

I'm not sure what to make of the exchanges between randyvs and others here except that it all seems occluded by the frustrations of hashing out differing opinions. But this has been pointed out in this thread and acknowledged, so perhaps we can move past this and on to a more constructive exchange of ideas. I hope

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Well, you spoke up for him. You told him he was misbehaving to which he answered "I see no reason not to".

Then goes on to say let's start over and avoids my question. Probably cause he was wrong. Of course later in some other thread he will say he hammered me back or whipped me into submission or some other such nonsense. Just calling a spade a spade.

On topic: of course science doesn't prove their is no god. It's not supposed to. It's really just a collection of information of observations, measurments and how to manipulate what exists in the physical world.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by randyvs
Annee 's right, in not responding to any of my posts. As I recall, she loves to respond in ridicule and got hammered back pretty solid.

What a load of BS.

If I was the only poster that said the same things about you - - then your claim would have validity.

I'm not - it doesn't.

I knew you'd warm up to me.:

Dask
There hasn't even been anything said between us that constitutes all this inquiry. Lets move back to the topic. ?

Drummer
You know ? You have pretty much droped, all the condescending crap, that you also once employed. That's a
rare thing from my point of view. Still talk some smack once in while but that's not a complaint. Just an observation.
Am I trying here ? Or what? I think I'm trying not to misbehave here ?

I'm not sure what to make of the exchanges between randyvs and others here except that it all seems occluded by the frustrations of hashing out differing opinions. But this has been pointed out in this thread and acknowledged, so perhaps we can move past this and on to a more constructive exchange of ideas. I hope

Sounds bitchen because I'm not as exciting to talk about as Christ, The Bible. The Heavenly Father, Creation.

That's all were doing here is talking...
So talk .
Everyone talk.
Ask I will answer but we start a new ?

Well, you spoke up for him. You told him he was misbehaving to which he answered "I see no reason not to".

Well now I do ! So ask me again ?

On topic: of course science doesn't prove their is no god. It's not supposed to. It's really just a collection of information of observations, measurments and how to manipulate what exists in the physical world.

Nor does the Bible try and prove there is one.

Originally posted by daskakik

On topic: of course science doesn't prove their is no god. It's not supposed to. It's really just a collection of information of observations, measurments and how to manipulate what exists in the physical world.

Yes, unfortunately too many people think that science is an engine for debunking. It sets out to discover and explain, not to disprove (though that happens sometimes).

Science isn't needed to debunk deities though. That can be done through simple analysis of the texts.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by randyvs

X

So if he wants to believe in unicorns, so be it.

I'm suppose to take you people serious ?

edit on 30-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

On a side note, the bible mentions unicorns no less than seven times.
Just sayin...

reply to post by randyvs


Cool! The rhino explanation is a fairly common response when it's pointed out that unicorns are frequently cited in the bible. Others claim it's an ox or even a mistranslation.

Since all references to unicorns in the bible are metaphoric anyway, the unicorn issue is really only problematic for biblical literalists.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
On a side note, the bible mentions unicorns no less than seven times.
Just sayin...

The Bible also mentions something called a cockatrice, which is a two-legged dragon with a rooster's head. But since the Bible is infallible, I guess it must have existed somewhere, sometime.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

i believe in a different version of god that you do .
i believe that god is a kind of recipe.
and the ingredients are the earth , plant life , sea . trees the stars in fact every thing including us the people .
the bible says do not look for me in houses of brick or stone but pick up a stone or a splinter of wood and there you will find me .
so because i don,t believe in your god , does that make me an atheist ?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

i believe in a different version of god that you do .
i believe that god is a kind of recipe.
and the ingredients are the earth , plant life , sea . trees the stars in fact every thing including us the people .
the bible says do not look for me in houses of brick or stone but pick up a stone or a splinter of wood and there you will find me .
so because i don,t believe in your god , does that make me an atheist ?

reply to post by tom.farnhill


I'm almost positive, the member you're addressing is a hardline atheist. Don't quote me on that.
If I were going to answer your question ? I'd say, no that dosn't make anyone an atheist.

Drummer
I know it is. It's almost the standard answer. I never seen it laid out that well before, so I posted it.
Kind a bums me out tho. I was hoping unicorns did exist.[

editby]edit on 30-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)