Duuuuh, I don't get it.

Oh?? I get it now. You are the intelligent designer!!

 All bow down and Hail thee Creator!!

here's something with a little more meat to it....

    deer mr. not-retarded,

    u dont mind if i call u mr do u?  it is my sincirest hoppe to speek 2 u in terms that we bofth can undrstand, so if i'v givn a fence, pleese 4give me.  i asoom ur fimilier with 4givness right?

    i taken the time 2 address ur consernes, so pleese take the time to wread thru them.

    "You say evolution is never proved wrong but then why do they keep saying we  evolved from something different?"
    this is a very importnt aspecked of evolushion: that 1 thing chandges  from what it is to something els.  something differnt.  wood that there was no chandge, there wood b no evolving to speak of.  the vary definishion of evolushion rather prezumes differnces.

    or perhaps u ment to say that they (i assoom u r referrng to the ubiquitous "They" here, whom i will presoom to speek 4, despight a lack in affileashun with this entitee) repeetedlie chandge their idia of what weave efolved fromm.  while i cannt persenly adtest to this perpetuwal scientifick shifting of pozition, if this were indeed truwe, it wood fall quiet inline with scientifick methedollodgie: that is 2 say that sciense is constandtly revizing its stance as it obtanes nu infermatian.  where old theoryes and hippothiseas are disproving, they are eithr revized with the nu dada, or throne out as falze.  in sciense, change is a good thing.

    "You are so dumb!!!!!!"
    in this u r quiet likelie correct.  after all, i am unable 2 deduice the most simplistick of questchions: why m i hear?  i cannt resolfve such prosaick things as "if god is ommipatent, can he make a trieianglar circkle?"  if we halve nuthin else in comon, u and i, we can agree at leist that we are bofth onley hueman.

    "Evolution has been proved wrong so many times and has never been proved right. That is the truth..."
    woow, i halve never quiet thouht of it that way.  all allong i halve bein serchin 4 the proofed of evilusion, and din't reileyes that it has alreaddy bien proved wronge.  and now, with much thanz 2 u, i can truely say that i know teh truwth.  begin dumb as i am, as u have so aptlee proved alreaddy, can u proeveyed me with this proofed so that i mighte use it 2 preech the gospell ackordengly?

    "and if you don't believe in God then you are retarded!!!!"
    what worryes me most about this possibillity is exacktly how retarded i might be.  if i'm like holy-fuck-you-can't-even-spell-god retarded, how coold i come 2 truely understannd him?  a beying so powwerfull to creiate the hole world and the univers and everthng in it must be reelly reelly reelly reelly reelly reelly rellly reely reeeeeeeeellllllliiiieeeee smart and stuff, and i cant even understnd elvolushion.  how can i knowe god?

    "God created the universe so just get over it already..."
    i'm stiel confuzed on this part.  was that 4000 yeers ago, or 14 billyin?  if it was 4000 yeers ago, how are we abel to sea starlite a brazilian light yeers away?  it woodn't halve reeched us yet.  if it was 14 billyin yeers ago, how come theer aint any dinersoars in the bible?  i gueess im just 2 dumb 2 get it.

   "You lost the debate before it even started."
    again, i just dont get this.  how cood i halbe lost before i starterd?  if chirstains halve some kind of time werp device, i think thats reelly reelly reelly reelly reelly reelly rellly reely reeeeeeeeellllllliiiieeeee unfare of them to use it aginst me in the debait.  they cood go back in time and know what i were gonn say befour i did, and i wooldn't ever b abel to say anything that they wood halve alreaddy had a response 4.

   wow! now i get it!  that's how they asnerred my rebootal about the law of thermaldynamicks and ocklams razer!  geniuous!

   "You dumb atheists are just to prideful to admit that you have been proven wrong."
   Actually, Unretarded, let me tell you how prideful I'm not.

   Being an atheist does not mean I am incapable of believing in gods.  It only means that you are incapable of making me believe.  Worse still, neither is your god capable, lest we not be having this discussion. 

   To wit:  Either your god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or he isn't.  If he is omnipotent, it would be quite easy for him to offer you a revelation as you type that would afford you the words necessary to bring me to his eternal home in heaven.  If he is also omnibenevolent and so much so that he gave his only begotten son (despite that being rather unkind to him, mind), why should he suddenly despise me and allow me to flame in hell for want of a better email than what you sent?  All of that notwithstanding, would that I were as stupid as you wish me to be, you would not even need your god's intervention to prove me wrong in the first place, you would handily destroy every dumb argument I make; which I will point out, via this very sentence, you have also failed to do.

   Being an atheist does not mean I am immune to religion, nor even stupidity.  Indeed, if unequivocal proof of the providence of the almighty xenu should surface tomorrow, I can assure you that I'd be beating your ass six ways til Friday to be the first in line for the holy DC-9 into the sky.  After all, who WOULDN'T want to live in heaven?  I sure as fuck do! 

See, in my heaven, I'll be doing 24-hour sweaty steamy sessions with my wife, Kirsten Dunst and five of her "closest" friends  w00t!  Sure, there would be no hunger, no thirst, no jealousy, and no fuckin pumpkin pie either.  I wonder, Unretarded, if that's similar to your idea of heaven?  If not, are you really being honest with yourself?  If xenu/god/allah/yahweh/santa/gandalf/gaiga/flying spaghetti monster would smile down upon you and say "eat, fuck and be merry" that you wouldn't want a little bit of that too?  And I wonder if that would be Kirsten's idea of heaven, having to deal with my incessant heavenly jaunts?  Maybe it is as long as she could have pumpkin pie.  Well hell, I could make a compromise there, and we'd be rockin the clouds from here til eternity w00t w00t!!!

Ain't it funny, though, how we can surmise and hypothesize and theorize and eventually come to consensus about the physical characteristics of the surface of Mars despite neither of us having ever been there, but cannot do the same for something so epic and poignant as heaven, despite having the word of god as our witness, which is far more empirical than mere science?  Wonder why that is? 

Because one of us is certainly retarded, no doubt.

That I have managed to disbelieve and discard the numerous gods and heavens that have been offered to me stands testament not to my pride or inability to do so, but to their inefficacy to command so.  Whether arrogant or stupid, I have proven to be more than a match for you, your god, and any supposed logic or tesimony inherent to either.  But as far more damning proof of my stupidity than anything you've conjured, one needs consider merely my decision to waste time responding to you when I could have been doing something far more productive, like creating unwholesome images of the virgin Mary and Joseph's goat a la linguine el dente and posting them on youtube. 

Maybe you're right after all, I am completely retarded.  Have fun in heaven.

retarded people don't believe in god? well, i think that's a generalization. i'm sure some do, but i'm not sure "retarted" is the politically correct term..

I think "retarted" is when a desert has to be done over maybe?

See, that's what I love about this country. You can be a religious drone, spouting idiocy, and it's not against the law. This guy is free to spread is half-witted ideology without fear of reprisal. And that's a great thing.

Actually oh unwise one. you're wrong. you see what had happened waas.......we find MORE prood pointing towards evolution every day. It's science it continues to grow and learn and make new discoveries....does it matter how you make the cake as long as the end result it still a cake?

your point it moot and im offended because i have a mentally ill family member...retarted is not a word to be thrown around lightly. i would use...remedial.

thanks.

and what proof do you have??? NONE. therefore some evidence wins against none. next time you have a little jesus chat give him the memo that i said to cover his tracks.

Hi there, Cloe! Prepare to be annihilated!

I will concede that arguments do arise in the scientific community over when, where, and from what Homo Sapiens actually emerged, but this in no way invalidates the theory of evolution as a whole. Arguing about the details serves to fine-tune our understanding of it, but the general theory is agreed upon by the vast majority of the scientific community.

I hope you don't seriously think this argument proves your point. Ever hear of ad hominem? It's somewhat frowned upon in a logical debate.

I would really like to see your evidence that proves evolution wrong. Evolution is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science, and only gets stronger as the body of evidence continues to build. As far as being proven, well, nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, but we do have quite a bit of evidence for it. A list of just a small chunk of that evidence can be found here: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

Again with the ad hominem. This statement proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that you can call people names.

I beg to differ. Where is your evidence of this?

I have a better idea, how about you get over your mental disorder that gives you delusions of a magic invisible man in the sky?

Seeing as how I've provided logical arguments whereas you have not, I'd say you lost the debate, but let's ask the judges, shall we?

That's it, you got us. All atheists know god is there, but we're on a damned power trip, and are rebelling against god. [/sarcasm] The atheist worldview is, in my opinion, far more humble than that of religion. I think it's far more arrogant to claim that you know the will of the creator of the universe, and that he cares for you, watches over you, and answers your prayers, than to assume that the universe doesn't give two shits about humanity.

Again, show me your evidence, I've shown you mine.

These kinds of arguments may work in church, but here you're going to need to provide actual logic when you try to defend your god.

Cloe,

It's important that I communicate with you on your level so that you understand me, so here's my response:

"am not" 

Well done! You have taken your first tentative step towards rational debate - Now read stuff, learn your subject, learn from others who may have a valid opinion - question everything you are told (especially by "authority figures" with hidden agendae). Be wise enough to know when you are wrong and man enough to admit it.

Please consider what people have written; try to understand why they have written what they have and understand that we just want to help you get better.

Have another go - but this time consider how you will be perceived by others; moderate your language, use punctuation correctly (and a dictionary for the hard words) and re-read your piece five times before posting.

I hope you have learned your lesson - don't poke fun at the clever kids!

Be good; have fun!

ManX 

Im back, to explain why atheists are retarded, I apologize for my long absence, I was busy having a life.  This will probably be my last post/vist to your trenches, being a doctor I have little time for trivial matters, besides, during my visit to your little site and reading posts I have realized that this forum is simply a medium that affords impotent individuals, huddled in their mother's basements a rare chance to flex cyber muscle, a chance to hit back, be the man/woman they aren't. 

<><>     Now for the main event, why atheists are retarded 4 reasons.

1.  The word misnomer, defined below.

The word atheist is a misnomer, the name to which you all so desperately cling.  Invented and used to revile sinners and wrongdoers or to shun them for acting (A)without (theist) belief in GOD.  Its creation and use was a misnomer to push the labeled sinner to repent, why would they repent if they were atheists?  

2.  Albert Einstein, one of the most intelligent and enlightened humans to live had a belief as seen in this exerpt written by him:

          “A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man.”   
                        --Albert Einstein
  

Even as, argueably the foremost scientist of the last two centuries, Einstein alludes to something he cannot explain, but he was a Deist, he saw enough to see beyond the limits of science, and acknowledge a God, not the kind so often argued about on this site but a God all the same.  Are you all smarter and more enlightend than him?

3.  Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor of calculus and credited with many other discoveries, also a type of Diest but a believer all the same, his exerpt follows:

       Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.[1]

    This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” πÉøÉÀÉ—ÉÕɻɜÉøÉ—É÷Éœ [pantokrat_r], or “Universal Ruler”. … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.[11]

<>                                                           --Sir Isaac Newton

<>I  hope you all paid special attention to the last three lines of the quotation,  Isaac Newton was one of the greatest minds of this world, are going to compare your idiotic "CORE MEMBER, PLATINUM, FOUNDER, RRS" bull crap to either of the above two examples?  If so youll be interested in reading my last example.

4.  Now for the cou de gras, the guy every atheist prays to nightly--               Charles Darwin.

<>    Did you know that your beloved Mr Darwin was very much a theist when he published his little paper on evolution giving credit to God for putting the process into motion, he was in fact a theist until his daughter died and than he questioned, even though he quetioned, prior to his death when asked he called himself an AGNOSTIC, and  claims he NEVER WAS ATHEIST.   Are you better than your own prophet? 

      I just want to state that I have little respect for Darwin as a Scientist or a man, I mean come on everybody deals with death and dying, professinally I have had the opportunity to witness how people deal with it and when the going gets tough the tough get going and the weak get atheist.

So take off the pizza stained RRS t-shirts, wash 3 weeks worth of butt sweat out of your shorts, get outside let the wind blow some of the stink off of ya, be an active witness of this world God made, try reaching out to help another mentally, physically, spiritually-- the trifecta of health (in the very least dont attempt to diminish another's spirituality because you have none).

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954

This guy is a serious asshat. From what he writes I'd say he's no more a doctor than Kent Hovind is. All the bad writing, nothing but ad-hominems, bad logic, etc. If he really is I hope never to be treated by him - he'd probably use leeches or something.

"cou de gras"? NECK OF FAT???!

Hey Mr. M.D., if you disdain Darwin so much, I think you need to find a new profession.

*Lois tone* lol.......whaaaaatttt?!

Cite your sources, fuckwit. Who are "they"?

How can I argue with so many exclamation points?

Name one instance. Don't worry; I'll wait.

So, taking something as fact without requiring proof makes me... smart? Thanks for clearing that one up.

Considering you couldn't debate your way into a hooker's cocksocket, I don't think I can take your claim of victory on faith...

(See that? The use of the term "faith"? Yeah, you love my irony skills.)

Thought experiment. I found it on YouTube, and wanted to see what kind of reaction it got here.

You're sitting across the table from a person who claims to be God. Not just any God, THE God, as in "the Supreme Being," and he wants to prove it to you. What evidence can he provide to demonstrate that he's God?

Bear in mind Clarke's Third Law.

The second line ain't much better. According to its logic "most likely according to science" is superceded in "betterness" by a possibility that purports to be true which is, by the speaker's own admission, non-scientific and unknown. Given that this could mean just about anything that defies logic and known data it seriously calls into question the intelligence (or sanity) of the person making the statement since it not only allows for the fact that the christian fundamentalist position is true but also allows for the possibility that the universe originated in the soiled diaper of the Lesser Spotted Grebnick's youngest Garbledork ...

... a theory that might even provide comfort to some poor deluded fools out there, but which unfortunately presents the same causality dilemma that the fundamentalists choose to avoid contemplating and which - as Darwin's work famously proved - science bravely tackles.