Thanks for being a prick. (you respond)
Offline That was the actual title of the email. Jake pointed out that at least he's gracious. Notice the grammatical errors.
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:43 AM
Subject: Thanks for being a prick.You guys are retarded emo pricks, get a life. If you really believe in atheism thats fine. I don't care thats your choice. For you to take the beliefs of others and compare them to Santa, is just childish. You might want to read up on near death experience research. Its scientific and clearly establishes fact that would lead intelligent people to believe in life after death or at least the strong probability thereof . Atheists stem from an old theory that is just a justified as the belief in creation. Atheists have even gone as far as to produce manipulated fossils to coincide with their own beliefs. Your so obsessed with being right its almost sad. The only constant is change. Albert Einstein believed in a higher power and he was a hell of a lot smarter then any atheist I know of, more creative and above all rational. "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." - Albert Einstein. He dealt with absolutes while you deal with the desire to be heard and show the world your so right. I don't remember seeing an up cry from any religious group offering a free dvd to post a stupid ass video, that according to you dose not even matter so whats the logic in that. All I see is a bunch of irrational pricks trying to gain a little power and a flicker of fame. You'll
be forgotten or considered idiots. Not because your Atheist but because your group is retarded as a whole.bottom line fuck your little self righteous club.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
You used your 15 minutes of computer time at asylum to write this little diatribe? How cute!
Ha ha! What exactly does emo have to do with atheism? Is he accusing us of being sensitive? Seems like he's the one doing an awful lot of whining.
And where are these fossils that evil atheists have manipulated? I'd love to see them!
It's not very christian of you to swear, you know.
I won't even start with the Albert Einstein.
And thank you for being an ignorant asshole.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I think "emo" is the new "fag" term. This Christian love just makes you all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?
Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”
Ack! These people are ridiculous! Emo is a type of music (at least where I come from). It's like emotional punk rock (sort of not really). I had no idea it now means 'fag'.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
side note:
What in the heck is emo anyway? = oldie but goodie page about emo ...
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Do you even know why we compare those religious belief to Santa? Until you can prove to me that believing in Santa is different from believing in God...shut up.
Why?
Intelligent people?
Ok, so you would want to use NEDs as evidence of a place called Hell? A place where God might have already sent some of your relatives to burn forever?
Ok.
What theory?
*SIGH*
I get it, you're talking about evolution huh?
So we made up all the dinosaur fossils?
Let me guess, all these "fossils" that have been found all over the world have been dug up and non-profit organizations like museums put them on display for educational purposes?
LOL!
No, we're not. But I can say the same about Christians.
*SHRUGS*
Using Albert Einstein for your arguments huh? Let's see how you do...
First off, Einstein didn't have a religion.
Einstein was a Pantheist, by definition. Practically an atheist in disguise."I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Upon being asked if he believed in God by
Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York,
April 24, 1921, Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 502.
...Ok.
You don't remember going to church at all?
"Believe in god and go to heaven!" - Pastor (insert name here)
Pretty much what you're doing right now. You should come to this forum and look at what everyone is saying about you. Cunt.
Well, you certainly remembered us.
How does it feel to come to this thread and see a bunch of "idiots" call you an idiot?
Idiot.
Atheist Books
I suggest that you stop getting all of your information from Christian websites. Everything you've written is a prime example of what happens when people allow themselves to believe hate-inspired propaganda that's derived from popular misconceptions.
Right back at you.
Blow me dumb shit.
If you didn't care you wouldn't be writing. Liar.
No, it's accurate. People believe in santa too you know.
You might want to read up on the psychological and physical explanations for such experiences.
No it isn't, and doesn't. The very phrase "life after death" is self contradictory and illogical.
Horse manure. Atheists don't stem from any theory. Individuals do. And every creation theory is laughable in origin.
And theists have gone so far as to make a cheese sandwich look like some mythical character. What's your point?
No, we're obsessed with stamping out irrational beliefs.
Albert Einsteins(or any historical character for that matter) beliefs or lack thereof are irrelevant(I'll deal with him specifically in a moment). Plenty of intelligent people get brainwashed.
Easy enough to counter, since you're misrepresenting Einsteins beliefs. I think two should suffice:
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously."
"An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. "
How do you like Al now?
Strawman fallacy. You obviously haven't spent any time looking around the forums.
Advertising. And I've seen plenty of religious groups doing effectively the same thing, so you don't have any ground to stand on with this argument.
Where exactly do you see a power grab here? I don't recall an atheist movement to take over the world. Maybe you could point me to it, I'd like to sign up.
There's nothing wrong with a bit of fame used the right way either. People do it all the time. I imagine you would too if you had the option. Unfortunately for you dipshits usually get ridiculed, not famous.
I somehow doubt your opinion will have any sway on history. But then I think you're overestimating what we're doing here in the first place.
You can suck my dick, you can enjoy it, and you can pay me for the fucking priviledge. Asshole.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist...I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." - Einstein
I think this is my favorite forum. Not the most informative, but definitely the most entertaining
You encourage us to get a life, yet it is you who is sending us messages at 3:43AM, on a Tuesday. Nothing says "a life fulfilled" quite like sitting in front of computer, flaming message boards, at 3:45 in the morning.
You are on a 7 step path to proving that you are an idiot. Step one is not knowing what it is you are railing against. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of a belief. Lets move on..
Alright, on to step two, special pleading. Because you are probably on your 4th Monster drink in the last 2 hours, or maybe because you are simply that dumb, you missed the irony in your statement. Let me point it out to you-- believing in fairy tales that have no evidence in which to support them is as childish as one can get. Believing in Jesus is no less childish than believing in jolly ol' St. Nick. On to step 3.
Right on schedule, you have decided to use the argument from assertion and provided no evidence to show that any credible scientist believes that the idea of near-death experiences lends credence to the idea of an afterlife. Consider yourself a Pink Belt in idiocy so far. Congratulations, keep up the good work!
OK, we've hit a speed bump here, you've regressed back to Step 1. Go back and reread that part, go grab some more Doritos, and come back to this point better prepared.
OK, you're doing it again. You're now back on Step 2. You'll never be a complete idiot at this rate. Come back with some EVIDENCE that shows that any of this is true, hang the tinfoil hat on the rack, and go back to your seat.
Ah, excellent, hurling insults! You've made it to Step 4!
The incorrect argument from authority. Simply beautiful. Here's five gold stars for you. Feel free to place one on each wrist, one on each foot, and one on your side. On to Step 6.
Daniel, I want to believe you're still on the path to idiocy, but quite frankly, I can't understand a word of the nonsense you just posted. Please rewrite that, but out of confidence that you meant well, we'll move ahead to Step 7.
We have reached the pinnacle. Daniel, you have done it. Step 7, or, all-encompassing hypocrisy. You are standing on the summit of complete idiocy. Thank you for writing, Daniel, for your gracing us with your masterful command of stupidity. Now leave us the fuck alone and go to bed.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
You guys are retarded emo pricks, get a life.
emo? That would hardly apply to most members of the site. What an idiotic stereotype that isn't even grounded in anything.
If you really believe in atheism thats fine. I don't care thats your choice. For you to take the beliefs of others and compare them to Santa, is just childish
Well, perhaps in your evident attempts at fair-mindedness, you would go to the Christian blogs who attempt e-prosetlyizing and tell them the same? To insist that such a comparison is childish without anything to really back up your assertion would merely validate the notion that your beliefs have no valid grounding.
you might want to read up on near death experience research. Its scientific and clearly establishes fact that would lead intelligent people to believe in life after death or at least the strong probability thereof
That is utterly ridiculous. Your sophomoric style of writing is pathetic. There is no scientific evidence for the afterlife, and the entreprise is considered wholly psuedoscientific. It is a listed psuedoscience, just like creationism.
atheists stem from an old theory that is just a justified as the belief in creation.
Poor grammer aside, are you referring to Biblical creation? If so, than pardon me for calling you an uneducated brain-dead twit. If not, and you are merely referring to the notion that there is a creator, then again I point out you have shown no evidence for this. Once again, I must point out your pathetic, intellectually lazy style of writing so consistent with those who have nothing to back them up.
Atheists have even gone as far as to produce manipulated fossils to coincide with their own beliefs
That is nonsensical, aside from the absurd association fallacy that atheism=evolution, you have shown no evidence save your blind, idiotic assertions.
Your so obsessed with being right its almost sad.
So, your inference would be what? It is better to be wrong?
The only constant is change.
Really. Well, I'll present that to the entire theoretical physics community and see what they think.
Albert Einstein believed in a higher power and he was a hell of a lot smarter then any atheist I know of, more creative and above all rational.
Einstein believed a power beyond human understanding, which is not inconsistent with atheism. He dismissed the notion of religious deities saying "the notion of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I do not take seriously". Furthermore, when Einstein did subscribe to the notion, he used it to create his "unchanging universe theory", which he later remarked as being "the greatest blunder of my life" because as we now know, is completely wrong.
Please educate yourself, you brain-dead twit.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." - Albert Einstein.
And how does this give any validity to the idiotic deities of the codified faiths around the world which Einstein rejected. Einstein's personal religion consisted of an awestruck appreciation for the universe. The classical theistic religion consists of this ridiculous being who saves souls and tortures people who disagree with him and gives an afterlife and all that idiotic whatnot.
Seriously, this may be the most pathetic email ever received.
I don't remember seeing an up cry from any religious group offering a free dvd to post a stupid ass video, that according to you dose not even matter so whats the logic in that.
That doesn't even make sense. Your idiotic and incoherent ramblings are bordering on insanity.
All I see is a bunch of irrational pricks trying to gain a little power and a flicker of fame
Once again, we are displayed in true fashion the debating tactics of the idiot who has nothing meaningful to say and thus talks loudly, boorishly and stupidly in hopes of being heard.
bottom line fuck your little self righteous club.
Thanks. I would reply in classic "Fuck you too" but that would seem rather childish. Thus the only thing necessary to point out is that your incoherent, drunken rambling was on the whole, rather pathetic. Everyone reading probably got slightly dumber by wasting time doing so.
Good day.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Near death science is so invalid and is open to so many confounding variables. My god, religion and supernatural ideas are so ingrained in our brains, that almost any perceptions we have that don't seem based in what could be considered reality are deemed evidence of an afterlife or a supernatural. This guy seems to be following the typical Fundy line about fossil falsifying and the typical some smart man said it so it must be true.
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
Everytime I see Einstein labelled a theist, I die a little inside.
Maybe that's why he's calling us emo.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
I had a hard time getting past the punctuation and grammatical errors.
Yup. Fine intellects, these xians!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
One reason this site exists, is that contrary to what people often say, people do care whether we are atheists. Many people would like nothing more than to convert or kill anybody who doesn't follow their dogma.
Here is some related material about the brain:
http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=17527
http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=18094
http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=18120
I gave some objective scientific material which clearly demonstrates that such experiences are nothing more than hallucinations, or bad memory.
2. atheism is strictly lack of theism. that's all.
Granted, people often become atheists, because we objectively look at the evidence (hence theory, but there is a lot more than one theory that leads people to being atheists)
I'd like you to give one piece of objective evidence to show that fossils were manipulated specifically to favour evolution.
Secondly, again, atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of theism.
Of course we like to be right. But we don't do that by changing the facts to fit our worldview. We change our worldview to fit the facts.
G=6.67x10^-11
h=6.63x10^-34
http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html
Most importantly, his god was not your god.
You may remember his quote: "God does not play dice"
And I again stress, his god was not your god.
Do you remember what happened to the world trade centres?
Do you remember how abortion clinics were bombed by so-called loving Christians?
If you don't think religious groups are trying to indoctrinate people, have a look at this:
Oh no, Christians aren't trying to indoctrinate people at all!
I don't think the RRS has been slow in development.
I'm glad he doesn't have a problem with Atheists so this e-mail was completely unnecessary. Anyway, as for the NDE being scientifically proven he has it backwards. NDE has been recreated in a labratory setting as does have a scientific explanation.
I'm not a fan of John Stossel but he did a great episode demonstrating the scientific basis behind NDE by reporting on the experiments done by the USAF. Yeah, and the show has Randi too so that's always good.
http://www.xenutv.com/cults/power.htmAtheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I'm not emo but if you really think we are that is kind of interesting. Most of the time if people are going to attack us for how emotional we are they do so by trying to say we lack it. Emo is a music/culture that deals with emotions so I do find it odd that you are using it as an insult.
Ok, but if I really believed in one of the religions with an idea of a hell I'd care about the people that would be going there. Do you follow one of these religions?
Funny I would have thought it would be childish to believe in santa...
You might want to read up on the scientific method. Personal experiences only go so far and there are some scientists that have hypotheses on how or why a person might have some sort of experience near death. I'd think if a person is unconscious or low on blood then it might be possible they are dreaming or hallucinating. If such ideas were good proof for a life after death then aliens are probing us at night.
Wait did you just say we are wrong because we are just as good as you? (or them, although if you aren't theist or atheist I'd like to know how you pull that off)
Wow now fossils are just an atheist conspiracy... I'd hope you'd have some sort of proof to back this up...
I highly doubt you know how most us go, are going, or went about exploring/studying the ideas of a god. Personally it was never about being right or wrong. After all if there is a god doesn't that make things easier? Are you suggesting this whole site is just about gloating?
Einstein has been covered in this thread I'm not going to waste everyones time and do it again.
Again you are assuming motivations you don't know about or at least don't seem to.
Don't ask me why people are shocked about a lack of belief we aren't the ones shocked...
I find it odd you think we are retarded for finding a way to manipulate the media. The thing you don't seem to realize is that it wasn't done for fame in a personal sense. The 'fame' wasn't really for being liked, but it did get the idea or meme that there might not be a god. It is pretty obvious that it has gotten people to think about it, yourself being a perfect example.
I don't see my self as being “right” just because I think I'm “right.” The idea of “right” only going so far. It isn't like anyone thinks they are wrong as if they thought an idea was wrong they would change their opinion and become right in their mind. I am talking about the ideas of thinking one is right because the ideas of being more moral don't fit the context.
PS ad hominem = bad
On darth's post: LOL, I really hope that girl is mocking.
Wow. Just wow.
I've never seen so much ignorance displayed in one paragraph before.
Get a life, WOW! we are so witty, we can impress rocks!
What?
Wait, we are we comparing creation and atheism?
Those two are not directly opposing.
So what about theists? You know, the ones who accept evolution? Are they doing something to, is was your worldview soooo small, that you didn't realize there were other theists who don't accept your creation story.
You seem to forget that there are other religions too.
I take it you don't know a whole lot of atheists.
Their choice anyway.
Daniel responded to me posting this thread.
Have at em!
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
So scientific evidence is presented explaning NDE and he doesn't want to hear it. That puts him in the willfully ignorant crowd. No point discussing anything with these types, they'll just get more and more defensive the more evidence you pile up against their position.
Are you kidding? Thats a creationist website. Its full of shit. I hardly consider that a valid source of info. You show me evidence, real evidence of mass fossil manipulation (im sure theres probably some asshat scientist thats done it once, but that does not invalidate the other 99.9% of scientists who are not like that) and I would be quite shocked.
I leave the rest of the people on the forums who are much better at debating and ripping up the rest of your thing, but I just had to comment on that one part of your response.
Go here if you would like to donate to help pay for server costs
Because I get information from a creationist website dosen't mean it's bullshit. Thats like saying all the information from an atheist websit is bullshit because of their stance. In many history classes I have also heard reports of so called missing links turning out to be hoaxes. It's incredibly biast, and the fact fossils have been falsified, is simply that. Fact. I'm not disputing evolution. I think its a brilliant idea, however the pieces still don't fit completely
And on the NDE subject. Obviously you have read nothing off one of the sites I posted. I already know the scientific stance of simply the mind dying and hallucinating. The evidence I am specifically
refering to is tests like this. Where people are the deaf are able to hear, the blind able to see recalling events confirmed by doctors attending the operations. There are other events where receivers of organ donors that pass, as soon as they come out of surgery.They know specific details about the donor. The persons name, what they looked like, etc. Some claiming to have met the person. While at the time the information was confidential. There are other instances where controlled studies were done with people who claimed to have out of body experiences when they slept. They were able to recite a series of numbers placed on a shelf too high to be reached or seen from the floor. The woman correctly recalled them.
Theres also the argument of whats the point of a warm all around good feeling of the dying brain. Wouldn't it incite fear or at least some will to survive? It could be just the way it is but it dosen't fit the behavior of any animal on the planet that could potentially die.
Also many of you assumed I was Christian. Never once have I said anything that could possibly lead you to that conclusion. So you just make the assumption, like you do with everything else. Many false assumptions were made on the behalf of the people on this forum about aspects of my email that were irrelevant to its point. For the record I am simply against any form of organized religion. Especially those which condone violence, or ask for money to fund the religion. I simply believe in a God. And if anything its just as possible as the fact there is no afterlife.
But how can you be so sure? You have no idea about any of the evidence I post. Yet you write objections and make assumptions without any evidence and dance around the point. I still have seen no evidence on your stance. I have brought you numerous ideas and facts that are cited. All you can return with is its from a creationist source. Of course its going to be. You think I am going to find anything near that on this site. I think I've probably looked through this site more then you. It even warns you not to assume anyone is Christian. Way to research for your own team. All you can really say is were not sure what happens at death. The closes thing we have to any suggestion are from NDEs. Do I believe every account? No. But ones confirmed by doctors are hard to dismiss. I actually know of two instances where atheists had NDEs and then decided to become Christian pastors.
So wheres your evidence that proves beyond a doubt there is no God, afterlife, etc. You have none. I am not even sure your fellow atheists want you to represent them. Going around and telling people how to live their lives is wrong. Saying for a fact anyone who believes in anything is wrong, is simply unreasonable. I simply don't agree with the people who run and support this sites approach. Its simply smear tactics. If you don't believe in God, good for you. I don't care. I'm not out to change your opinion. I'm out to say that going out of your way to tell people of any religions and those who indepently have their own ideas about God are wrong because you think your right is absured. Do you all not see the rationale?
So I am still waiting to see your proof. Lay it on me. Quit picking out sentences you disagree with. Give me evidence that dosen't involve refuting creationist ideas. If you have any it will probably have the same justification as mine. You can't even explain your counter evidence. You simply say I'm wrong. Way to back it up.
Since you already said you were going to ignore the evidence presented then why bother. I presented a link that showed video of a labratory setting where NDE were recreated.
Your little personal testimonies aren't scientific evidence. For heart surgery the patient is killed and brought back to life. Knowing that this would happen some intrepid skeptics put objects in the area where a "floating soul" would be able to see them. To nobody's surprise everyone who reported a NDE didn't see those objects. It isn't any big deal for a patient to wake up and recognize the room that they are in.
The entire fact that NDE can be recreated and scientifically explained refutes your unsupported claims that the nervous system lives on after termination of brain function. You really don't have anything to offer the discussion since you have already acknowledged that you don't want to engage in a discussion. Evidence was provided, you said you weren't going to look at it. So what's the point of wasting any more time with you?
BTW, evolution has been scientifically proven too.
So wheres your evidence? Can you definitively prove that there is a God? Supreme Being? Whatever you want to call it. I'm simply suggesting that aggressive theists such as yourself go out of your way to tell people their wrong when you have no proof. None. You cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt
that there is a God. So until you can. Shut the fuck up.
So you agree that their is no proof either way. My point is that its wrong to impose your beliefs on other people. I don't do it. You do. I never said I was right beyond doubt there is a God. I am simply saying that I have my reasons why I believe in God.
I am open to discussion. I aknowledged the other views on the dying brain and the possibility that was just they way it was. Your attacking me because I believe in God. I'm attacking the fact that this site is going well out of its way to saying everyone that dosen't think like you is wrong. Do you not understand this? Just as I can't prove beyond a doubt there is a God. You can't prove beyond a doubt there isn't. So I don't attack somones beliefs. I present reasons why many people are under the belief that there is a higher power. I'm not attacking atheism. I'm defending everyones beliefs including your own. I think its wrong that Christians persecute atheists I would never dream of hurting somone because they thought differently then me.
I am with you on the fact that many religions try and impose their beliefs. I don't agree with it. I see many people who have sent emails to you and you ripped them apart just because their beliefs were different. I saw the news special where the creator of this organization wouldn't stop till the end of Christianity. If he was against the opression some Christians take to extremes I'd gladly agree atheist or not. Why are you targeting Christianity is another thing that confuses me. There are many other religions out there rampant in America. I guess saying the same thing about Muslims and Jews. But that could be considered racist so you avoid going there? If evolution, and by evolution I mean the whole thing the combining of amino acids till now. The earliest parts I have problems with, that the odds of a single cell being created from that and surviving is 1 in practically trillions upon trillions. But lets say I totally agreed with evolution and your stance on NDEs etc. Where is the beyond a doubt fact there is no God? I simply choose one of two options is my choice and you have no right to persecute me, as I have no right to persecute atheists.
If an atheist website said that creationism is false and that was the only evidence was the statement, I wouldnt buy it anymore than a theist site. I would want to see some scientific, objective evidence for something and then ill do some research myself and come to a conclusion.
Go here if you would like to donate to help pay for server costs
Do you haver evidence there are no unicorns? What about elves? giant 900 lb chickens? An ooga booga monster living on pluto?
For a very good reason, the burden of proof is always, always, always on the person who claims something exists. Until it is given, the logical default is to assume it does not.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
So wheres your evidence? Can you definitively prove that there is no God? Supreme Being? Whatever you want to call it. I'm simply suggesting that aggressive atheists such as yourselves go out of your way to tell people their wrong when you have no proof. None. You cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt
that there is no God. So until you can. Shut the fuck up. First of all, accept my sincere congratulations on your improved grammar. It’s a fine achievement.
No, I can’t prove there are elves, unicorns or analogue radial metaphysics either. Does that prove they exist? The burden of proof is never on those who are unconvinced, it is always on those who advance the proposition. This is a primary principal.
What you claim in itself is a little trite. What does interest me though are two things about you that I think are significant.
1/ That you are so distraught and agitated.
2/ That you do not wish to hear opinions expressed by those who think differently than yourself.
I feel sure that 1/ and 2/ are inextricably linked in your mind. If you can come to terms with one, the other will be solved as well. It doesn’t matter which one you start with. Good luck with it, and let us know how you are getting along.
I sometimes think, therefore I am intermittent
Well you are the one who sent the e-mail in the attempt to malign and emotionally impair the recepient. As for your claim there is no evidence either way that is incorrect. There are no scientific studies that have concluded in favor of creationism, that was already proven in the Dover trial where the creationists admitted they had no scientific evidence.
I went to your NDE website and saw some of the most abhorrent distortions of science outside of a creationist website. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. One link tells you how to record the voices of the dead. They suggest to get the crappiest recorder you can because it will generate more interference then you can delude yourself in thinking you heard voices, kinda like when people played records backwards and heard demons talking.
Anecdotes from people isn't scientific evidence of an afterlife or soul, it's scientific evidence that people believe in afterlives and souls. And the mere fact that such experiences can be repeated in a controlled environment prove that there is nothing supernatural about the experiences. I don't know why this has to be repeated a third time but you have a habit of saying there is no scientific evidence when plenty abounds.
http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf
http://leda.lycaeum.org/Documents/The_Ketamine_Model_of_the_Near_Death_Experience.9264.shtml
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=51473
For the last time I'm not attacking Atheism. Can you not get that in your head? Though suggesting because that theres no Unicorns all other evidence is false. However I see you all fail to understand the point. Thats funny the whole 1 and 2 thing, it sounds like all the responses I've heard. And the responses still haven't changed. If all you can come up with is theres no elves then I'm led to believe your education stops after you got out of kindergarten. Which it seems alot of you are. Not a single underlying point is understood. Its like trying to have a discussion with a freshman in highschool.
The only reason I am even discussing anything on this forum. Is simply because somone chastised an email I had written. I had not the slightest notion it would be posted. I was a little toasted at the time and it wasn't an letter up to my standards. It was solely for the group of people that ran the site. For the last time because I'M NOT ATTACKING ATHEISM. However I do believe posting my email on here without my consent lacks even more tact.
It is unlikely I will ever get an apology for that. However I apologize for my first email. I had no intention of offending atheists. Again I was attacking the site. I will make no further responses because this is a waste.
You are attacking atheism and you are being an asshat not addressing what we say. Did you not see where it said anything emailed is considered property of this site?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Can't read the clause in the email section? "If you choose to debate us, it will become a matter of public record".
If you have no responses to the thought excercise of the "fairies and elves versus God" scenario, I see all you can do is attack it and it's propogators ad hominid. It was originally constructed by Bertrand Russell (far more intelligent from you judging by your prose). He said to imagine a tiny teapot orbiting the Earth, a celestial teapot. We cannot prove the teapot exists because our telescopes cannot see it. However for that same reason, we cannot disprove the teapot. But to believe in the existence of said teapot based on such an epistemilogical grounding would be utterly absurd. His construction of the scenario thus showed that the burden of the proof rests on the claimant.
As you lack the mental capacity to grasp this concept, all you have done, see above, is to attack those who put it forth ad hominid. Well done. Also well done for the deliberate cop-out from the debate based on said ad hominid.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I have proof that the theistic position is not worthy of being held, I can show how it's no different than believing in an invisible boogeyman in your closet. I can't show how there is no god, in the same way I can't show how there is no invisible boogeyman in your closet. The most important thing here is that you believe in something you can't prove, I choose only to believe in things that I actually can prove.
So you don't believe the things you sent to me? You contacted me, not the other way around. Who's imposing in this situation, you or I? You're being hypocritical on this issue.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
You write an email titled 'thanks for being a prick' and then you have the audacity to state that you're not attacking us? That's laughable, it's so idiotic. Your email is filled with rancid anger and it's quite clear that you are indeed, attacking us. And why? Because it's an atheist site.
"You guys are retarded emo pricks, get a life."
Nope, that's not an attack, is it? I'm pretty sure it is.
"Atheists have even gone as far as to produce manipulated fossils to coincide with their own beliefs."
This a lie. I highly doubt there was a group of evil atheists plotting fossils just to dispel the myth of creationism. Tell me exactly which fossils were manipulated and why. Go to a reputable source. There is documentation out there. Come on, we all know what you're talking about when you say this.
"All I see is a bunch of irrational pricks trying to gain a little power and a flicker of fame."
I think this one is pretty nasty too.
"bottom line fuck your little self righteous club."
Ooh, someone's got his panties in a bunch. You kiss your mother with that mouth?
People here have made valid points but you just refuse to see them. You can keep going to your silly little creationist sites but I suggest you pick up a real textbook someday. You get all bent because people attacked an email you wrote which was attacking us. Go figure.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure there are disclaimers and such about your emails possbily being made public so perhaps next time you might actually want to read a little before you vomit a bunch of bullshit on us. So stop crying about how you've been attacked.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Look who's talking about tact! Telling people you don't agree with that they need to "shut the fuck up" because they vocalize their position is tact? You can rant and rave about how we're wrong and I'm not going to get mad. As soon as you say that we need to shut up, then I say go get bent!
If you don't care, then it can't be a low blow can it?
Actually you're the one who did that.
There are a number of links above giving evidence to claims made. What specifically are you referring to?
This sentence is nonsensical. I tend to overlook spelling and grammar errors, but there is no coherency within this sentence. Try again.
Sure we can. Life = living. Death = dead. Life cannot = death. It is a contradiction. If there is something after death, it is not life as you or we know it.
I'm getting paid by the hour, while you spent your free time. I win.
You mean lies. Big difference between the two.
There were a dozen different statements and links proving NDE is not science. You are conclusively proving yourself irrational by repeating claims that have been refuted without refuting the refutations. That is because you cannot refute them, and you are intellectually dishonest.
I'll skip the examples as irrelevant. Some fossils have been faked, yes. But those fakes are not what the evolutionary theory is based on. Even mentioning them is just plain stupidity on your part.
Pre-refuted.
It's fun sure, but it doesn't make me feel better about myself. It makes me feel sad for you, actually. I try and move past that sadness so it doesn't cripple my day to day activities. There are so many of you delusional people.
Oh the irony. Have you ever read a book that didn't say holy on the front?
If you really read the science you wouldn't be here making nonsensical claims.
Why would I buy a book of theist lies that have been refuted a thousand times? Just so I could do it myself? I really don't feel the need to.
Behe is a complete moron. The only thing he ever did regarding creationism that was remotely scientific was irreducible complexity. A hypothesis that while scientific has been shown conclusively as false. If you want to waste your money on his stupidity, that's your problem. I won't do the same.
Behe is a liar and a fraud. He doesn't present evidence proving evolution wrong. All current evidence proves it right.
I'm not going to sit here and refute every theist author you can come up with. Most if not all of them have already been completely refuted by credible scientists. Even non-credible children can see the holes in the theist lies. I'll skip past the rest of your false evidence.
Sure can. Law of conservation: Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy http://www.answers.com/topic/conservation-law http://library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/lawce1.htm http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Thermochem/Law-Cons-Mass-Energy.html http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9025938/conservation-law
Doesn't matter what you want to call it. It doesn't exist in nature.
We have plenty of proof. That law is the icing on the cake. The tip of the iceberg.
I just did, so shut the fuck up.
What valid arguments?
The only one I really had a problem with was mentioned above. Feel free to correct it so I can tear it down properly.
Finding chinks within chinks is pointless. Your overall thoughts are completely flawed and irrational.
Unless it makes it impossible to understand you, as it did above.
Christianity gets more attention because it's more common. Every religion is equally wrong.
Morality and ethics predate christianity. Christianity has tried to tear down basic morality and ethics.
Bullshit. He said it himself. There was no closet.
More bullshit. Maybe you should actually learn about the guy.
It really doesn't matter what time it was. You wrote it, spending your free time making an ass of yourself. Congrats.
More likely we simply know what we're talking about, unlike yourself.
Did that above.
You're welcome for proving god is physically impossible.
Never.
Gave proof. Thank you, come again.
Nope. The RRS gave out movies to people who stated an opinion they already had. It's an advertising stunt. Get over it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"So wheres your evidence? Can you definitively prove that there is no God? Supreme Being? Whatever you want to call it. I'm simply suggesting that aggressive atheists such as yourselves go out of your way to tell people their wrong when you have no proof. None. You cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt
that there is no God. So until you can. Shut the fuck up."
Richard Dawkins' "The God Dellusion" has a chapter in it entitled 'Why There Almost Certainly Is No God,' in which he refutes almost every possible arguement for there being a supreme being. While he admits that we can never completely 'disprove' something like that(the same as you can never 'disprove' the existance of leprachauns', we can make a scientific, value-based statement about the probability of said god, which, as Dawkins shows, is incredibly low.
I'd summarize Dawkins's brilliant arguements here, but that's way too much typing, and it's simply something you need to read in it's entirety.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
2. I don't see where you got that. But if I were to suppose that is correct, it would be because he's already heard the arguments theists make, knows why they are illogical, and is sick of hearing them.
3. Are you actually going to address his point? I suspect a red-herring.
“The pieces don’t fit exactly” is as incorrect a statement as you can make. It's your doctrinal based assumption and it is patently false. In other words you are wrong. They fit and very well over every single known science that has measured the history of our planet. Your bitching about a few jigsaw puzzle pieces not found yet (altogether different than the pejorative "missing"
in a picture that has thousands upon thousands of fitting pieces is preposterous. This position is tantamount to missing the forest for the trees. The statement is scientifically ridiculous on so many levels. Please read about what evolution really is. Creationist sites do not feel they need to follow the scientific method, which then allows them the flexibility to "create" a straw man out of what they do not understand or don't want to understand. This is why we can easily and without prejudice discount them, like one discounting academic credibility for Liberty University for having a stated premise about their views on our origins and then setting out to prove it.
Stop for a second and think about what it is you are saying. Try as best you can to remove your indoctrination long enough to compare the apple and orange to the qualities that they both have in their own terms. Let’s start with the removal of any sort of equivocation for the term “theory.” These definitions come from my Encarta dictionary, but you could easily use any that you like. Theory:
1.
I am using definition number 5 as it pertains to evolution and then numbers 2, 3,and 4 for creationism. By all means please point out where you think I am in error. The theory of evolution has passed 150 years of scientific observation and testing. It is not—I repeat—not merely a biological theory in existence in some kind of vacuum. It relates to the various life forms on the planet and how they came into being. It is a theory (definition 5) that is established within other sciences as well, geology and SCIENTIFIC cosmology for instance. It fits very well in all of the known sciences that relate to our planet and to our relationship as human beings to the process that has led to where we are now. This is indisputable as a scientific theory grounded in fact. Creationist sites have no bearing on evolution not merely because they are necessarily against evolution itself, though their conclusions on this field of study become their Achilles’ heel in the end regardless. The issue is that creationist sites have no respect for the scientific method at all, which means they have no bearing on the theory (definition 5) of evolution in the only terms that it can be discussed in.
That means the wish to have a voice scientifically speaking without having to follow the rules of the trade is the very reason that creationists deserve the ire they receive. They can be and should be discounted on face value when discussing our origins. Actually, you are right about one thing. If you could find an atheist site that critiqued a creationist site without referencing that same scientific method in doing so, you would be justified in disregarding it at face value. I would applaud you in this. Good luck, however. Atheists in general are well read on the subject and, as is the case here at RRS, many are actually scientists themselves. Every single atheist site I have seen that debunks creationism does so squarely within the confines of the rules used within the scientific method. This is not the case for any creationist site I have seen. I challenge you give us a link to a creationist site that does follow these rules. Again, good luck. I’ve yet to see one that does anything more than pay lip service to science while similataneously decrying evolution in scientific terms.
They are hypocrites of the worst order. In fact, I’ve yet to see one single creationist publication printed in any reputable scientific resource anywhere in the world. However, peer edited, corroborated, tested and retested papers on numerous topics related to evolution have been published, independent of governments, churches, atheist radio shows, and political agendas. They exist on their own merit, something that has never been accomplished by creationists or ID pundits.
Let’s look at that for a moment again using the definitions above:
#5 scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena
#2 speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
#3 idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
#4 hypothetical circumstances: a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical
Evolution is “a set of facts” that have been time tested for well over 150 years. “Propositions” that had started with Darwin continue to have relevance today. Though changes to the original ideas about “The Origin of the Species” have been made over the years, the body of data has exponentially grown, adding to the veracity of the science and the theory itself. These “principles,” as well as those principles originally posited by Darwin, have then been thoroughly “analyzed” in their relationship to one another, so much so that none of the scientific disciplines have provided for any reason to discount evolution. NONE! That means then that evolution meets the definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory, one that more and adequately explains the “phenomenon” of life on our planet.
The creationist “theory”, numbers 2, 3, and 4 in the list, relies on “speculation” and “abstract thought,” not to mention “contemplation” that falls well short of any testable discipline. There is no proof for a creator, in fact, the mere notion of a creator in this sense requires one to “form a notion by speculation” of that creator by suspending the laws under which the universe and our planet operate. The only product of such a process must by definition be “conjecture” thereby invalidating it from anything remotely scientific. Right there you have a problem because creationists basically claim that they can argue philosophically why we scientifically live on this planet. At best they achieve “hypothetical circumstances” that amount to whatever their whims wish to assert. That’s an impossible challenge to meet in any meaningful way, unless the readership you are targeting is gullible and likes to have life summarized in tracts instead of real case studies built on evidence. Which is it for you? Apparently the latter. Your quibbles about how evolution hasn’t answered questions does nothing to affect evolution in that very important definition #5 for theory. All a creationist can achieve which such statements is an “abstract” speculation about something that he or she clearly does not understand. Your ubiquitous "pieces still don't fit completely" not only does nothing to dissuade one from the numerous, time tested experiments and data that support evolution, it also does nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that an entity outside of the known laws of the universe could have created us intelligently or otherwise. There is ZERO science in this position, nothing. Period.
Richard Dawkins has it right when he says that there is no record of anything within the system of our universe that creates anything with a degree of complexity without a long, drawn out process that leads to this end. So, there is no reason to "poof" an imaginary god into existence with all the bells and omni-whistles to explain the gaps in knowledge we currently have about our origins. Why do this when there is no ground to do so? The only reason to do so is to uphold a known tradition that is nothing more than a convenient societal security blanket. This blanket is sewn from non-science, favoritism, special pleading, and circular reasoning, all the stuff found with your run of the mill conversation in a sandbox with four year olds.
That means that your arguments against evolution are impudent because evolution is in point of fact a slow, almost tedious process that manifests complexity over time, minor, incremental complexity over large periods of time. If you let that sink in for a moment, and then allow your indoctrinated yet evolved eyes to look at the evidence we do have, then you’ll quickly realize that 1) evolution fits this mold Dawkins' explains extremely well and 2) your mythological god and the other guy's mythological god and all the other people's mythological gods you conveniently don’t believe in also go agaisnt the very nature of the foundations of our knowledge.
You’re huddled over falsified fossil claims and missing links “problems” which have no bearing on anything relevant while your theist cohorts wax in perpetuity about philosophical if-scenarios and package them as science. Really, you couldn’t be peddling a more bankrupt position if you tried to sell swap land on the moon. Wake up, man! Really, for your own sake and sanity in this oft fucked up world, wake up!
Cheers!
{FIXED}
1/ I'm not familiar with the term 'think-headed', but that notwithstanding, Im sure we can all understand the concepts arising form his post; be it theism, the desire to insult and belittle, hostility resulting from frustration, and making the issue personal etc.
2/ Illogical? Surely not. The whole rationale behind the rejection of religion is that equates to rejection of the illogical. This can be understood by anyone with thier ears & mind open.
3/ His point has been addressed. Read the whole thread first, then detail where you suppose the red-herring to be.
I sometimes think, therefore I am intermittent
I was really bored today and remembered I had an argument with you guys over spelling and grammar. And then I stated my point over and over again dumbing it down and you still didn't get it. Btw I am not a theist. Great detective work. I have never read the bible. I am simply open to the possibilities of ideas. Im not the hippocrit you guys started telling me I was wrong on the news first. So I wrote a hate mail cause I felt like it. Telling me E=mc2 dosen't dissprove any aspect of creation. Still no proof at all. You all are simply saying since I see nothing there must be nothing. Well theres all kinds of bullshit going on in the universe you cant see with an electron microscope. Anyways there have been a few decent remarks none of which from the rational response squad to my dismay. I show my thread to your fellow atheists and they get a good laugh. Anyways just wanted to say it has been fun. I'll check back and argue some more I miss you guys!
I just noticed I was branded with the Theist tag... wow are you guys that fucking dumb..... your breaking your own rules now... quote me where I said I believed in a God... basically i just dont like how you guys are high and mighty on atheism.
You probably received the "theist" tag because you seem to repeatedly offer the same poorly-thought-out arguments that creationists do, even after those arguments are defeated, and you do seem to defend creationism. These tend to be tell-tale signs of a theist.
Your email attack probably didn't help much either. If you're not a true theist, it seems you've at least established yourself as an honorary one as far as this forum is concerned.
What was the point of coming back and spewing all of this anyway? If you hate us that much, no one is forcing you to stay.
Are you secretly in love with us, or are you just trying to get a rise out of someone?
Either way, count on disappointment.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
When the xtians shut up I will. As will pretty mcuh everyone here. But the xtians dont; shut up do they? They shout very loudly all the time across all networks and all media. They tell us what to do. They bomb abortion clinics, they prevent scientific research, they influence politics all the time. They are far from quite and all this noise is based around a premise that, you quite rightly point out CAN NOT and HAS NOT been proved. So when the xtians shut the fuck up I will too. But until then I reserve the right to counter the nonsense they spout at every opportunity. Thats only fair isn't it?
The thing is this. I've noticed if anyone says anything supportive of any belief that theres anything else out there. They are deemed a christian. Why not muslim, jewish, etc. Definetly a bias towards christians here which I imagine is because there are a lot of former Christians here. I am not "trained" in any formal religion therefore I am definetly not a good canidate to defend religion. There is alot of shit out there science claims to one day be able to explain. Science will never be able to give all the answers. So there will always be alot of missing information. Evolution, the big bang, etc does not leave out the possibility of higher beings. But ideas about evolution and the big bang change almost daily, but those theories change almost daily. So how can you make an argument on information that is not even close to concrete. I am merely pointing out the holes. And I totally agree that bombing abortion clinics and all that bullshit is wrong and should be spoken about. But it seems thats not the agenda here it seems the agenda is more whos right and wrong on the subject of christianity. So you get everyone to stop being christians are you gonna stop there? Your probably better off targeting religions with a weaker base and working you way up to the Juggernaught of the catholic church. (which i despise for their ethics). I mean its not gonna work. People can believe what they want, but believing in somthing definetly dosen't make them a moron. Most exteremists are insane, bombing abortion clinics, or killing for anyreason is wrong. But its not just religious people. Look at Virginia Tech, look at columbine, its not just religious people so I don't see how you can blame it all on religion. Are you just looking for a scapegoat?
Christianity is the main focus primarily because it is the religion most of us have dealings with. It's the Christian religion that is effecting my government, for example. There have been threads regarding other religions.
Just because we might not have all the answers doesn't mean we should just give up. Should we pretend that there is someone out there that made all of this instead? No, science does not have all the answers, perhaps it never will. What's wrong with that?
I don't think anyone here blamed Columbine or Virginia Tech on religious people. Of course there are non-religious people who do atrocious things.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
"Thank you for being pricks"
No, you should thank your preacher and cleric and rabbi for selling society myths and passing them off as fact based on naked assertions.
Do you really believe that a bearded man in the sky, whom you've never met nor can prove made "one light for the night" and one light for the day" when in reality there are not two lights, but merely sunlight reflecting off the moon?
You should thank the people who sold you the idea that a zygote can form without the aid of sperm. You should thank the people who sold you the idea that human flesh can survive rigor mortis after 3 days of lack of bloodflow and complete brain death and cellular death.
Those are the people you should call pricks, not the people who want to challenge you to face reality and not blindly buy what myth lovers sell.
For the same reason you reject Thor making thunder we reject your majic claims as well. For the same reason you reject Allah and Vishnu we reject your deity as well.
If you are brave enough to challenge yourself to think insted of whining like an insecure brat, you'd understand what this site is trying to do. WHICH IS SIMPLE,
EDUCATE PEOPLE and get them to think without their blinders on.
"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if their be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson(Do you know who that is?)
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
, Daniel said self-righteously
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin