Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Famous Atheist Quotes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
    RE: Bob's List of scientists
    Bob,

    Don't you find it curious that your list ends in the mid 1800's? And your other list of those believing in a created origins only has a single genetics scientist who also worked and died in the 1800's. Science has come a long way since then, and it has proved that natural means provides explanation for life diversity. The best you could make claim to is origin of life, and even that is a dangerous area to rest your faith in. Your most recent scientist is an agriculturalist....Need I say more?

    I'm curious as to why you don't use modern god believing scientists in your list? Is it because they are all "evolutionists" as well? (other than the quack Dr. Micheal Behe who was humiliated in the Dover Trials.)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Lion View Post
      That's not bad... especially since in police work bald is considered a hair color.
      Thanks for taking the wind outta my sails, ya big jerk

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
        ...I suppose someone has already had at the old, reliable standby,

        "IEEEEEOOOOYYAAAAA!" *crackle* "OOOOOEEEAAAAAAAAAA!"

        Nope. You're the first TH. Sweet!
        In service of the
        Lion and the Lamb

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Lion View Post
          Really? There are actually over 230 verses concerning intelligence (only it's called wisdom in the Bible).
          Granite's signature/Russell's quote seems to indicate the gospels specifically and while wisdom is mentioned a few times throughout the course of all four, it doesn't seem to ever be praised as a virtue.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Fallout View Post
            Thanks for taking the wind outta my sails, ya big jerk
            Oooops. Sorry. But you know first cop to the doughnut wins!
            In service of the
            Lion and the Lamb

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Lion View Post
              Oooops. Sorry. But you know first cop to the doughnut wins!
              How charmingly stereotypical

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                Nuts!

                What every atheist says about 10 seconds after dying.
                Don't you think Ooooouuuuch!!!! is more accurate? Because if faith while one is alive is what saves us from the lake of fire, then there will be absolutely no judgement process when an atheist dies.
                Militant Moderate

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Southgarden View Post
                  "If I were not an atheist, I think I would have to be a Catholic because if it wasn't the forces of natural selection that designed fish, It must have been an Italian."
                  - Douglas Adams
                  Did he like fish, or was this a cheap shot at nature, italians, and fish?

                  Because if it is the later I am offended. I am Italian, I like fish and am fascinated by nature.
                  Militant Moderate

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by IoverE View Post
                    "The way to see by faith, is to shut the eye of reason"
                    Ben Franklin

                    "Give a man a fish he eats for a day, give a man religion and he'll starve to death praying for a fish." Not sure who said it but thought it was funny
                    That was me back when I was agnostic, I can't believe it has become a famous quote. I said it one night at a keg party in college. Have you ever been to Connecticut?
                    Militant Moderate

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Lion View Post
                      Redstar quote

                      Only when they ape Christian ideals and civility.
                      Last I checked "skepticism" is not upheld in the Bible as anything more than heresy.

                      I heard something on Comedy Central once...

                      "Why is it that we hate Lucifer when he gave us the most valuable aspect of humanity: intelligence?" - Anonymous.
                      If TOL is any indicator, heaven sucks.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by noguru View Post
                        Did he like fish, or was this a cheap shot at nature, italians, and fish?

                        Because if it is the later I am offended. I am Italian, I like fish and am fascinated by nature.
                        It's from his book "Last Chance to See", about animal species either endangered or threatened with extinction, after seeing all the different colourful fish in the Great Barrier Reef. So unless you really, really don't like the stereotype that Italians are quite ... flamboyant, it's not an insult, no.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Southgarden View Post
                          It's from his book "Last Chance to See", about animal species either endangered or threatened with extinction, after seeing all the different colourful fish in the Great Barrier Reef. So unless you really, really don't like the stereotype that Italians are quite ... flamboyant, it's not an insult, no.
                          I was joking, I am not easily offended. I just got back from the Meso-American reef, none of those fish reminded me of my relatives. My grandparents generation dressed in either black or grey. My parents generation was also very conservative in dress (except around the holidays where the women liked to wear a lot of reds and greens). And my generation has become very anglicized. Of course we do tend to get a little more passionate about things than your average northern European.

                          My grandfather who was a bike messenger in the Italian army use to say things like "I use to rida my bika so fast, the bullets could nota catcha me." Perhaps he was referring to that kind of thing.
                          Militant Moderate

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
                            Dawkins is engaged in the discussion with Stein; he admits that the complexity observed in microbiology could be evidence that life on earth originated from a higher intelligence, somewhere out there in the universe. Of course, he claims that such a higher lifeform must have evolved by some kind of Darwinian mechanism. But if genetic and cellular complexity provides evidence that life on earth is too complex to arise by chance, then evolutionists like Dawkins and Francis Crick are just punting to claim it must have originated somewhere else. Dawkins validates the Intelligent Design argument
                            But genetic and cellular complexity do not provide evidence that life on earth is too complex to arise by chance (whatever you mean by chance) so your argument falls on an invalid assumption.

                            For those who object that these brilliant men lived prior to the 1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, consider the following scientific giants all of whom in a time of more open debate, publicly rejected natural origins and Darwinian evolution, and indicated that the evidence supports belief in a supernatural Creator:

                            Michael Faraday, 1867, Electromagnetism
                            Gregor Mendel, 1884, Genetics
                            Louis Pasteur, 1885, Microbiology
                            James Joule, 1889, Thermodynamics
                            Lord Kelvin, 1907, Thermodynamics
                            Joseph Lister, 1912, Modern Surgery
                            G. W. Carver, 1943, Modern Agriculture
                            ...and, despite the collective biological brilliance of Mendel, Pasteur and Lister, there is no predictive, falsifiable Theory of Divine Creation.

                            Could it be they were deluded?

                            Stuart

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              But genetic and cellular complexity do not provide evidence that life on earth is too complex to arise by chance (whatever you mean by chance) so your argument falls on an invalid assumption.
                              Darwinian natural selection has nothing to do with chance. It's a red herring to suggest that it does. From what I know about Dawkins, it's his contention that the complexity of nature excludes the possibility of a designer.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Fallout View Post
                                Darwinian natural selection has nothing to do with chance. It's a red herring to suggest that it does. From what I know about Dawkins, it's his contention that the complexity of nature excludes the possibility of a designer.
                                I agree. The concept of chance is simply how we classify what we see given a false dichotomy. The false dichotomy is between many various possiblilities that lead to an even greater plethora of possible outcomes as opposed to predestination or a program set into action by God for which no other outcome is possible. The fact is no one can run a control experiment to see whether things would have happened or will happen another way. What is clear is the chain of cause and effect relationships that can be traced back to some point in the past. Each thing that happened in the universe was the result or was affected by things that happened previously. And similarly what happens in the future is the result of the state of things as they are right now.

                                Even a car accident is not pure chance. There is a chain of events that unfolded that lead to the cars colliding. It was not intentional in many cases, but that does not make it a matter of pure chance. This is a false dichotomy that is created by people who think that anything that was not intentional was due to pure chance.

                                I do not know how Dawkins can make the claim that "the complexity of nature excludes the possibility of a designer". To me that is just as much a statement of faith as the IDer's statement that "The complexity of nature excludes the possiblity of natural causes."
                                Militant Moderate

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X