This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion IS crazy!

Must I repeat myself?


It is truly amazing how opinionation obscures the evidence of one's own eyes!

Must i repeat myself,

Please give an example of his behaviour that goes against his written position of being an agnostic atheist.
 
As to your claims about having no devotion to Dawkins, you certainly could have fooled me! You've been actively defending him and his stance in your postings!

No, i have just tried to explain his stance, and tried to get you to give an example to back up your stance.
 
Those unwilling to receive answers shouldn't ask questions!

You haven't given an answer

You have not mentioned a single way that Dawkins has behaved which contradicts his written position of being an agnostic atheist
 

Interesting. I do wonder whether there is an issue the science, which is more an effort to understand the world as it really is and really can never prove or disprove the existence of God and religious belief, exerts a large amount of its time attempting to be its own worst enemy as its tries to disprove its own theories. This is what controls are all about. Religious belief is different aspect in that it takes as an axiom that there is a God and does not attempt to disprove that. No real issue with that.

The problem which exists with biblical literalists is that the more we learn about science, particularly biology and geology, the less it agrees with the biblical account. This makes perfect sense when you consider the bible is a collection of religious stories produced by man at a time when we did know an awful lot about biology and geology, however it makes no sense if you believe the bible is the inerrant word of a supreme being. If you subscribe to this second view then your only option is to claim science has it completely wrong.
 

My point is not at origins but rather that people are conditioned to a religion depending on geographic location, my point still stands that if you were born in Pakistan you would most likely be on here preaching your love for the Quran whilst praising the one true god Allah (ignoring the language barrier).
 
The religion of peace strikes again....

 
The religion of peace strikes again....

This is just sickening...What in "gods" name was the reasoning behind that?

An eye for eye is not harsh enough for these animals.
 
And then there is children being accused as witches,
Tortured and beaten in the name of Jesus


[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TYp9imWL_l4[/video]
 

Oh really?!!
They can weigh it can they?!!!
Then tell me your supreme omniscience!
Draw from your pool of incontestable wisdom!
What does a particle of dark matter actually weigh?
My garden is in dire need of fertilisation, so please impress me with your omniscience as I would not want my shrubbery to go wanting.

It may be news to you, but there happens to be a very big difference between supposition and evidence!

What you've described here is what I prefer to call "GUFF" ("Gravity's Unassailable Fudge Factor")!

Some planetary bodies have been observed to have exhibited behaviours contrary to scientific understanding.

Rather than accept that current observations are in conflict with contemporary physics (and also suggestive of a failure in sequences of repeated experiments) a new theory has been concocted to account the anomaly. An unknown mass has been hypothesized!

Even if one were to rely on the validity of our contemporary laws of gravity and motion, the presence of an unknown mass is only one of a variety of ways that such anomalous planetary behaviour may be theoretically accounted. Assertions that the anomalous behavior can only be accounted as "dark matter" are untrue and out of accord with the claims to openmindedness and objectivity that permeate this debate.

Those in disagreement with the aforesaid need only substitute the term "dark matter" with terms like "unknown force", "invisible gremlins", "GUFF" (or perhaps even "God") to see the inherent logical flaws in these premature assertions regarding the existence of "dark matter".

P.S. Please note that I am not disputing the theoretical possibility of "dark matter". It is a theory that I willingly entertain, but unlike pseudo scientists, I do not delude myself into automatically accepting unproven religious theories as fact, especially when the only evidence supporting said theories is contingent on the validity of other unproven theories!

See what I mean ?!!! Some acolytes of science are "superstitious" and invest belief in the "supernatural" just like religious folk!
 
What is it exactly that you get out of endlessly promoting your 'scientists are just as dumb and superstitious as religious folk' thesis? Not sure which side should be more offended by your repetetive line of rhetorical attack?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...