Look another idiot found me!

Another religious idiot made a post on me again, needless to say it follows the standard formula. Gonzales responded to the is god impotent post, and like a true religious nutt-job he tries to avoid answering on the content of my post, presenting instead the usual tirade of meaningless religio-babble.

His main counter argument seams to be that my spelling sucks, which it does, English is my third language but that is irrelevant. Besides i like misspelling mosk, alla, etc.

My God is impotent post quotes Epikurs 4 questions and the idiots response is….. ( drum roll) The questions are wrong! yepp Gonzales claims the questions are “inherently flawed”. Of course there is no reasonable explanation at all as to why they are flawed, typical religious nutt-job response “i don’t like the inevitable answer, so the question must be wrong”

Like a true religious idiot he continues with a long tirade of meaningless gibberish, let me quote him “a) the questioner’s apparent understanding of evil and its reality; and b) how our universe functions and the role evil plays in it.”

Gonzales seams to believe he can read minds across time? i mean, how else can he claim that he is able to judge Epikurs understanding of what evil is?

Gonzales then reverts into a tirade where it seams like he is trying to define good and evil, via some obscure references to to some imams interpretations of his holy texts. Its all absolute nonsense, meaningless gibberish based on unfounded speculation and interpretation of bronze age texts from people living in tents.

He also claims atheist will have trouble defining Evil, again unfounded speculation from Gonzales, in fact i can easily define Evil from his religious standpoint as well as from a normal persons ethical standpoint.

– Religious idiot standpoint evil = anything against the will or law of the god(s)

– Ethical standpoint evil = a violations of empathetic ideals which is manifests as morally or ethically objectionable thought, speech, or action which is hateful, cruel, violent, or devoid of conscience.

If you follow the first definition you end up with gender mutilation, suicide bombers and stagnant oppressive societies, Gonzales will fit right inn.
Gonzales the concludes with a typical religious contradiction, if the universe works by cause and effect as Gonsales stipulates below what caused allah?

“This universe works on cause and effect; it is the way Allah created it. Something happens, which in turn affects the things around it and cause other things to happen. Keeping this in mind, the occurance and existence of evils in the world is integral to how the universe functions.”

Thankfully atheism is growing at an exponential rate, within just 30 years religious idiots will be a minority in the west, and the majority of people will see religious idiots for what they really are. Superstitious, brainless, morons.

74 Responses to Look another idiot found me!

  1. D says:

    Cruelty oppresion and contradictory stupidity? You MUST be a mental patient.

    I don’t even care if the dinosaurs thing is false. It doesn’t disprove Christianity, no matter how much you want it to.

    Would you like to give me your standard atheist argument, or was that it? If it was, I would be entertained to see your worst. ‘Cause so far, I haven’t lost this argument.

  2. D your posts are just feeble excuse attempts for a religion that is brim full of cruelty opression and contradictory stupidity.

    And if you lost all respect of me like i have of you why are you still clogging up the discussions with your meaningless crap?

    The info and so called evidence you are presenting is just plain false.

  3. D says:

    by “them” I mean atheists

  4. D says:

    Haven’t found an internet article on it. Why don’t you go to KS? They have all the evidence and stuff there.

    I’m guilty about this, and I apologize, but I’ve lost more than all respect for you.

    When it comes to violent Bible verses, I prove them wrong. Here are my posts:

    http://derekstwistedmind.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/christianity-violent/

    http://derekstwistedmind.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/christianity-violent-part-ii/

  5. LOL evidence that humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs LMAO,

    …… hold on a minute i just have to wipe my eyes, LOL

    anyway Sooooo where is this evidence then? present it!!!

    you see all the other evidence collected by the certified scientists around the world puts at least 60 million years between the dinosaurs and us.

    Go ahead bring me proof or f….. off, nutcase.

    The crusades, the inquisition, pedophiles abusing shildren on a massive scale etc, etc. Christianity caused this, there is no doublt about it.

    When it comes to violent bile verses there are to many to list here i you can visit this page

    Cruelty in the bible

    Over 800 instances if i remember correctly.

  6. D says:

    @EMpatient

    Aren’t you an atheist? Don’t atheists support “rational thought”? Logic is rational thought. You’re saying you don’t believe we can trust our thoughts? If we can’t trust our thoughts, then I can’t trust anything you say, after all, our thoughts must be a bunch of chemical reactions that are meaningless.

    You still haven’t given me the verses that you claim contradict. Once you do, I can validly argue my point with you.

    Humans HAVE, as a matter of fact lived at the same time as dinosaurs. There is archaeological proof to support this. There are fossilized footprints — the same age — that specifically show that a human was running away from a Tyrannasaurus.

    If Christianity was violent, it wouldn’t preach otherwise. The Crusades weren’t based in religion. The Crusades eventually turned into a religious fight, but Christians didn’t just decide, “Hey! Let’s go kill people!”

    Find me one violent verse in the New Testament. I doubt you can.

    By the way you’re insulting me, you’ve made it obvious that you simply refuse Christianity. You don’t have the proof to back up your claims, you just refuse Christianity and you just hurl insults even though you know it won’t do you any good.

  7. … none of you have presented any defencible evidence to disprove evolution.

    And likewise, you haven’t presented any evidence proving evolution is a proven fact. All you have done is repeatedly claim that it’s a fact and that there are mountains of evidence to show that it is (not once mentioning an example of such evidence).

  8. Aboo Uthmaan says:

    Q, thanks for your interjection, but it is my open mind that led me from being a person who had no recognition of God to someone who now wholeheartedly believes in his existence. “Open Mindedness” is not something exclusive to scientists and atheists; rather, it could be argued that they are open minded on the one hand whilst being closed minded on the other in their obsession in trying to prove the non-existence of God The fact that animals suddenly appeared is in and of itself evidence for a Creator.

    And Q, you’re not mistaken Richard Dawkins did offer some sort of explanation in his comments on the fact that fully formed formations of all of the major animal groups appeared in the ‘Cambrian Strata’ of rocks without any fossilised ancestors. He said that (and to the best of my knowledge this is the only explanation evolutionists can give) there must be a gap, but not any old gap, not one of just one or two intermediate forms, but a huge gap of more than 19 different phyla.

    Evolutionists claim that genetic evolution is slow and gradual process, it must be really slow because the fossilised records found in the Cambrian Strata of rocks are around 600 million years old (according to Richard Dawkins), yet what was found in them was all of the major invertebrate groups that still exist today, so thus far it has taken them 600 millions years to evolve and still no change in them, maybe if we wait another 600 million years we might see some change in them, but then don’t count on it.

    EMP, I think that the above highlighted case study is a good proof, hopefully the sought that you are looking for. On a side note, what do you mean by the religion version which has been disproved?

  9. qmonkey says:

    Aboo

    Dawkins, who as you say is a renouned athiest – is such a scientist that (as you noted) he doesnt wash over the sudden appearence of ‘sudden planting’ he says… hmm i dunno why this is lets investigate. THATS SCIENCE.

    I may be wrong, but i think since then the sudden planting HAS been explained, and the search for knowledge moves on.

    Its a good example of the Open Minded scientist and the closed mind god believer.

  10. Science continually revises itself, everyone knows this. Usually when something proves that a previous model or idea was wrong, ie: religions description of evolution is wrong as proven by evolution.

    The point is the the Religious version has been PROVEN WRONG!

    Why delude yourself and believe in something that has been proven wrong?

    Evolution has already been proved by several generations of scientists! there is no longer any doubt about the merits of evolution.

    Again : Please present the scientific evidence that equivocally proves that evolution is wrong!

    PS that life suddenly appeared is no longer considered a surprising event at all, in fact extramofile finds (living bacteria today) points to that these simple lifeforms would thrive on earth as soon as the surface solidified.

    Let me try to use an analogy that even you might understand.

    Lets for arguments sake compare a scientific theory with a piece of paper, lets say as evidence emerges the paper unfolds until you can clearly tell that yes its a sheet of paper.

    That there are a few unanswered questions, lets say one of the corners of the paper is still folded, doesn’t mean that we cant say with absolute certainty that yes this is a piece of paper. science will take the view i am certain this is a piece of paper but since i cant see one of the corners so i will continue to investigate that just so i can be even more certain.

  11. Aboo Uthmaan says:

    When I a make mention of scientific facts not being accepted I mean some things that were regarded as a scientific fact before are no longer regarded as such, this is the nature of science, technology is advancing all the time and new things are being discovered by science, so many things that were once thought to be correct are now known not to be, if this is the case, will things today that are regarded as being “truth” be considered so in a hundred years from now?!

    Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti-science and there is no doubt that many great things have been discovered by scientists, great things that are a benefit to mankind as a whole. On a different note, you haven’t answered my question yet, yet you expect me to answer yours, I could flip everything upside down and say to you that you are the one who is claiming evolution to be the truth, so prove it!

    Lastly, I hardly think Stephen Gould or Richard Dawkins are considered wacky scientists, have a read of their resumes and you will see their credentials and the respect that they receive within scientific circles, both of them are pro-evolutionists and Richard Hawkins is a very outspoken and confirmed atheist. So I was merely quoting what they were forced to admit after examination of fossil records that life suddenly appeared.

    It is strange that after acknowledging such and in the face of the evidence (from their own research) against them and their beliefs they are still two of the biggest advocates of evolution, well not Stephen Gould anymore since he died a few years ago.

  12. Aboo

    You pissed me off sorry about that

    before i go any further in my dialogs with you prov your claims.

    prove that evolution is wrong or submit that it is right. Evolution has been proven right and it differs vastly from the religious description, ie: if Evolution is right religion cannot be right as well

    My point Prove it Present evidence to support your claims. you claim that scientific facts are no linger accepted. prove it (please use credible sources not quasi theists that present theories that cannot be collaborated..)

  13. Well there are limits to my patience, none of you have presented any defencible evidence to disprove evolution.

    Prove that evolution is wrong and i will bow my head and admit i am wrong. But then again you cant can you! All you guys can do is refer to some quasi fringe theologists that believes he had some kind of revelation during his last acid trip. that has put forward some theory that isn’t supported by any facts at all and that cannot be tested by peers.

    I make a promise i will be civil when you guys get more than one brain neuron firing simultaneously.

  14. Aboo Uthmaan says:

    It’s a shame that you have reverted back to your original ill-mannered state, just when I thought we were seeing a new you. If you are not able to demonstrate proper moral etiquettes when differing is there any real point in discussing such subjects. I agreed with you in a previous discussion about the possibility of morals being inherent, however, you are a perfect example of why God has sent a moral code for us to live by since you are totally incapable of knowing what good morality entails let alone living accordingly.

    You missed the point that I was trying to make with the giraffe example, but I had hoped that by quoting Stephan Gould’s words it would have been understood. I am not claiming that this is what evolutionists TODAY believe; rather, I was merely asking why such a ludicrous “theory” is taught as a scientific fact in the biology text books of most high schools, and again, I made light to Stephen Gould’s research on the issue, but instead of answering the question you decided to dish out insults.

    My other point was about how once accepted scientific facts are no longer accepted as fact, so perhaps what you considered to be a scientific fact today may not be tomorrow, so it was never really a fact in the first place since if it was it would still be so.

    It would have been wiser for you to let the conversation take its course instead of jumping down by throat. You are not really showing off your self proclaimed intellectual superiority.

    I am well aware of what evolutions claim about their theory stating that it is a slow and gradual occurrence, in fact, we do not witness creatures evolving since the process is very slow. Fortunately, we do have fossil records and as your very own Stephen Jay Gould acknowledges:

    “The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record.” [See: S.J. Gould, ‘Cordelia’s Dilemma’, Natural History, Feb 1993, P.15]

    Not to mention Richard Dawkins:

    “…the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” [Richard Dawkins, ‘The Blind Watchmaker’, 1987, P.229]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: