As an atheist, it is impossible to prove to you even the possibility that God exist. Your mind is predetermined before evidence is given to you. You'd make a horrible legal judge... You dismiss the evidence because you already have your mind set its fake.
19 comments
As an atheist I only look for natural explanations. The supernatural is excluded because it cannot be investigated, proven, or disproven, within the boundaries of nature. In other words it's a complete waste of my time when I could be drinking/fishing/screwing/etc.
Remember when the fundies thought anime was satanic('cause those evil Japanese ade it) and stayed out of our forums, while the religious otaku were more tolerant and knew logical fallacies when they saw them?
Well, if the accused's defence rested solely on an alibi like "I was in bed with a beautiful three-eyed princess from the planet Zog at the time of the crime so I couldn't have done it", I'd also dismiss the evidence without a second thought.
That's about as likely a story as God existing.
I beg to differ. I'm not dismissing any evidence. Please provide me with this evidence...
Please?
Anybody out there?
C'mon guys, you all claim there's so much, surely at least ONE of you can provide some.
Nobody?
Thought not,,,,,
Remember State of Tennessee vs. Scopes, in 1925? Although the former won, it was a pyrrhic victory for them. Scopes became the underdog, and he represented change in an entrenched, granite-rigid, unbending, dominant paradigm of one-dimensional thinking.
But suppose there were to be, today, a reverse -Scopes Monkey Trial, in which fundamental ist Christianity itself was put on trial - via subpoena-ing & cross-examination of various preachers - for it's very existence. Where - if the defence lost - right-wing Fundamental ist Christianity had to cease to exist (via legislation rendering such illegal & unconstitutional, due to it's own socio-political interference)? Imagine the scene: for example, Pat Roberson is in the witness stand, and the prosecutor asks him to prove the existence of God - via him actually appearing in physical form in said courtroom - at the same time calling for God to appear in the courtroom, like a subpoena'd witness (and surely - as he's 'omnipresent', nay, 'omnipotent' - he can do so extremely easily). And when he - as well as Pat - can't ...! >:D
Three words: Kitzmiller versus Dover.
He doesn't seem to realize that there isn't any evidence that God doesn't exist, either, or that faith doesn't necessarily need evidence, since it's entirely possible to believe in God but know that you can't see Him in your mortal life. This guy sounds like one of those atheists who say "Ha ha I'm right you're wrong don't question why end of story." Hopefully they're a minority just like the Christian fundies on this site.
“As an atheist, it is impossible to prove to you even the possibility that God exist.”
"Your mind is predetermined before evidence is given to you”
" You'd make a horrible legal judge... You dismiss the evidence because you already have your mind set its fake.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
