Unfortunately, what they desire is no God, and they will use any distortion of evidence they can claim and use it to give validation of their disbelief. They will call these distortions science, and they will say that people who do not believe in their fabrications either are uneducated or are not smart enough to understand science.
Atheists are not well reasoned people who have somehow neglected to see the truth of God. They are immature children who loudly proclaim that there is no God because they seek attention.
14 comments
It?s interesting that a profile of Mensa members shakes out to be very similar to the general population when it comes to who believes in ?God? or has faith in whatever (with a marginally higher percentage of atheists and agnostics). Still, idiots are idiots, and brilliantLiberal not only takes the cake, but continually reinforces his high standing in that regard.
Science and atheism are not synonymous, science is just a way of gathering information about the world, and it's a much better way of going about it then blindly trusting a 2000 year old book of fairytales. We have evidence for scientific findings, observations, and theories, but none for God.
We don't seek attention, quite the opposite, in fact. We don't want religious beliefs dictating how we should live our lives, just as how we won't force religious people to live a certain way in their own private lives.
Winston: Many religious believers are convinced athiests do, thanks to that small slice of athiests called secular fundamentalists and conservative media like World Net Daily and the Media Research Center who brag up that everyone who's an athiest thinks that way.
"they will say that people who do not believe in their fabrications either are uneducated or are not smart enough to understand science."
Sierra: "Random" is a misconception that shows that you are ignorant of the details of the theory that you are disparaging. Like most humans, you have so far failed to grasp the significance of, and the scope of, the vast amount of time involved in these iterations. I don't expect to change your probably closed and programmed mind, but the old "monkeys with typewriters" would have enough time to produce several million libraries full of material at least.
Sierra, you have been given a short explanation of one supposition. Now, if you want to say, do some research on your own to, oh, I don't know, actually learn about the complete arguments, chains of evidence, sets of conclusions, or the amount of time it took to arrive at these ideas, you might change your mind.
Sierra: "You know, when person after person after person describes to me the big bang as "all the matter of the universe scrunched up into a ball that exploded and randomly formed life," I can't help but respond with, "You're either uneducated or not smart enough to understand."
Many atheists don't "preach" about it. I am an agnostic and usually don't, but recently tend to comment on FSTDT. Part of the post is right, like about ignorance. But complaining about it will not help, the solution is to study using the right material, not religious propaganda. The desire for no god is wrong though, they just don't see evidence of it, and what you claim to be evidence is far from convincing to everyone else. This is a variant of the "evolution is a doctrine to justify sin" argument, also wrong. Discoveries made when honestly studying nature with the best methods available should be distinguished from human traditions, narratives and philosophy, what you're into. Science is a means to assess and discover reality. Narratives alone will not lead to reality. Your argument is also one of reality denial.
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.
