Does Science Lead to Atheism?
Budikka666
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/07/post-29.html#more
He wonders if atheists and agnostics are more inclined to science than
believers. Creation snits, of course, would rather do what they do
best and outright LIE about it without pretending they can offer a
shred of support for their claims.
But the biggest give-away to the creation snit lie is actually this:
more people are doing science now than ever there were in the past.
The rate of scientific discovery is greater than ever before.
Yet the proportion of atheists to beleivers isn't exactly sky-
rocketing.
So yes, once again, creation snits are proven to be nothing but
vacuous liars. No surprises there.
Budikka
Mr. B
> more people are doing science now than ever there were in the past.
> The rate of scientific discovery is greater than ever before.
>
> Yet the proportion of atheists to beleivers isn't exactly sky-
> rocketing.
Exactly right, and exactly the point that needs to be brought up. There are
plenty of scientists who maintain some sort of religion, and in many cases
they are doing solid scientific work. The real problem is not religion as
much as it is religious fundamentalism (and only a fundamentalist could be
a foaming-at-the-mouth creationist). Most people with a religious
affiliation are willing to accept scientific results, because they
understand the difference between their religious mythology and reality, and
those are the sorts of people who can maintain their religion even while
conducting scientific research.
-- B
Ken
Everyone is born an atheist.
As kids grow up, many are brainwashed by adults into accepting on
faith whatever bogus fairy tale they get fed.
The intelligent ones soon realize there's no Santa, no Easter Bunny,
no Tooth Fairy, no Great Pumpkin, no Fairy Godparents, no all-seeing-
eye watching over them and definately no sky pixie.
Andrew
> more people are doing science now than ever
> there were in the past. The rate of scientific
> discovery is greater than ever before.
This is true, and as time advances we can see
how nonsensical the atheistic idea actually is,
because it does not square with new scientific
discoveries which are pointing to a Creator.
"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and
benevolent design lie around us ..The atheistic
idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into
words." -- Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave
defects, which are more and more apparent
as time advances. It can no longer square
with practical scientific knowledge."
-- Dr.A Fleishmann, Zoologist
Christopher A. Lee
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Matt Young doesn't think so:
>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/07/post-29.html#more
>
>He wonders if atheists and agnostics are more inclined to science than
>believers. Creation snits, of course, would rather do what they do
>best and outright LIE about it without pretending they can offer a
>shred of support for their claims.
It's an old canard. The first time I heard it was in the first Usenet
posting I replied to, in 1991.
The response hasn't changed - when there is no reason to believe
something then one doesn't.
And the "reasons" theists imagine why they believe are
rationalisations not reasons.
The most common reason is that they were conditioned to believe in
their formative years.
Andrew
>> But the biggest give-away to the creation snit lie is actually this:
>> more people are doing science now than ever there were in the past.
>> The rate of scientific discovery is greater than ever before.
>>
>> Yet the proportion of atheists to beleivers isn't exactly sky-
>> rocketing.
>
> Exactly right, and exactly the point that needs to be brought up. There are
> plenty of scientists who maintain some sort of religion, and in many cases
> they are doing solid scientific work. The real problem is not religion as
Yes, and this unfortunately is what happened in the religion of Darwinism.
"I was a young man with unformed ideas, I threw out queries, suggestions,
wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas
took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them" -- Charles Darwin
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:63345e0f-6416-4f19...@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> more people are doing science now than ever
>> there were in the past. The rate of scientific
>> discovery is greater than ever before.
>
>This is true, and as time advances we can see
>how nonsensical the atheistic idea actually is,
>because it does not square with new scientific
>discoveries which are pointing to a Creator.
What "new scientific discoveries which are pointing to a Creator" are
you lying about,liar?
>"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and
> benevolent design lie around us ..The atheistic
> idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into
> words." -- Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267
Hardly recent, liar.
But in any case what are these alleged "strong proofs of intelligent
and benevolent design, pig-ignorant, in-your-face, aggressively stupid
serial liar?
And what "atheistic idea" is supposed to be "so nonsensical that he
could not put into words"?
It can't be Darwin's explanation of the facts of evolution because he
was theist at the time.
Why do you imagine somebody saying it without saying how he reaches
that conclusion, is worth anything?
Do you even know who Kelvin was?
Or his field?
Hint: he was before practically all of modern science. His field was
thermodynamics and cooling. He calculated the age of the Earth as
somewhere between 20 and 400 million years based on cooling gradients
that assumed it started off as a ball of molten rock.
Can you guess where he went wrong?
Clue: he didn't know about heat generated from radioactivity because
he did his calculation in 1868.
>"The theory of evolution suffers from grave
> defects, which are more and more apparent
> as time advances. It can no longer square
> with practical scientific knowledge."
> -- Dr.A Fleishmann, Zoologist
And his reasons for saying this, serial liar?
If he actually said that he is as big a liar as you are. And just as
stupid.
Dan Listermann
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:27OdnSfS1Lw2tNPX...@earthlink.com...
And those OLD quotes are supposed to impress exactly who?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Mr. B"wrote in message news:h2l6nb$vk2$1...@news.gabrix.ath.cx...
>>> But the biggest give-away to the creation snit lie is actually this:
>>> more people are doing science now than ever there were in the past.
>>> The rate of scientific discovery is greater than ever before.
>>>
>>> Yet the proportion of atheists to beleivers isn't exactly sky-
>>> rocketing.
>>
>> Exactly right, and exactly the point that needs to be brought up. There are
>> plenty of scientists who maintain some sort of religion, and in many cases
>> they are doing solid scientific work. The real problem is not religion as
>> much as it is religious fundamentalism..
>
>Yes, and this unfortunately is what happened in the religion of Darwinism.
What "religion of Darwinism" are you lying about once again, serial
liar?
>"I was a young man with unformed ideas, I threw out queries, suggestions,
> wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas
> took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them" -- Charles Darwin
If he actually said that he was at most speaking metaphorically.
But as usual you never give where he said it or its context and
imagine we have to take you seriously.
Why don't you get an education and learn something about what you're
attacking?
All you do is tell the world what a pig-ignorant, dishonest retard you
are.
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> more people are doing science now than ever
>>> there were in the past. The rate of scientific
>>> discovery is greater than ever before.
>>
>> This is true, and as time advances we can see
>> how nonsensical the atheistic idea actually is,
>> because it does not square with new scientific
>> discoveries which are pointing to a Creator.
>>
>> "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and
>> benevolent design lie around us ..The atheistic
>> idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into
>> words." -- Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267
>>
>> "The theory of evolution suffers from grave
>> defects, which are more and more apparent
>> as time advances. It can no longer square
>> with practical scientific knowledge."
>> -- Dr.A Fleishmann, Zoologist
>
> And those OLD quotes are supposed
> to impress exactly who?
Certainly -not- the incorrigible Darwinist
who is blinded by an atheistic paradigm.
Christopher A. Lee
Who's Fleischmann?
What I don't understand is why the imbecile imagines "so and so says
an observed fact whose mechanisms are well understood, doesn't happen"
is meant to convince anybody.
Especially when he never gives how they reach these "conclusions".
Tim Miller
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:63345e0f-6416-4f19...@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> more people are doing science now than ever
>> there were in the past. The rate of scientific
>> discovery is greater than ever before.
>
> This is true, and as time advances we can see
> how nonsensical the atheistic idea actually is,
> because it does not square with new scientific
> discoveries which are pointing to a Creator.
What "new scientific discoveries" would that be??
I seriously doubt you can point to even one.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Liar.
>who is blinded by an atheistic paradigm.
Liar.
All you do is tell us just how aggressively, pig-ignorantly,
deliberately, dishonestly stupid you are.
Is Francis Collins "blinded by an atheist paradign", moron?
Or DonExodus?
ilbe...@gmail.com
> On Jul 3, 7:54 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Matt Young doesn't think so:http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/07/post-29.html#more
>
> > He wonders if atheists and agnostics are more inclined to science than
> > believers. Creation snits, of course, would rather do what they do
> > best and outright LIE about it without pretending they can offer a
> > shred of support for their claims.
>
> > But the biggest give-away to the creation snit lie is actually this:
> > more people are doing science now than ever there were in the past.
> > The rate of scientific discovery is greater than ever before.
>
> > Yet the proportion of atheists to beleivers isn't exactly sky-
> > rocketing.
>
> > So yes, once again, creation snits are proven to be nothing but
> > vacuous liars. No surprises there.
>
>
> Everyone is born an atheist.
> As kids grow up, many are brainwashed by adults into accepting on
> faith whatever bogus fairy tale they get fed.
> The intelligent ones soon realize there's no Santa, no Easter Bunny,
> no Tooth Fairy, no Great Pumpkin, no Fairy Godparents, no all-seeing-
>
> - Show quoted text -
No Sir ; no one is born an atheist . Not even a child has enough
faith to be an atheist..but heres how you become an 'alleged'
atheist :
It happened the same way it happens for all who become atheists
: A child of 4-7 years old looks around and asks where we came from,
how did the universe get here, what is our purpose in being here ,
and
what happens after we die (physically) . The child intrinsically
knows that existence implies a creator and design implies a Designer
--
he can see,sense, and know both . Then, when the child typically
enters
adolesence or sooner...he/she gradually starts to suppress that
inherent
knowledge as well as the moral conscience because the person desires
to
live a completely autonomous lifestyle with no one telling him or her
how to live , regardless of whether its moral or not ; this coupled
with being taught atheistic philosophies in school helps solidify the
willful decision to live for SELF. As years go by, the person gets
cemented in this personal philosophical bias and discovers that
pretending there is no Creator offers maximum lifestyle convenience
regarding choices with no ultimate moral culpability. The person
stays
in this mindset/commitment unless he awakens to what took place , is
willing to end the charade , and realizes that his/her ultimate
purpose
and meaning isnt tied up in SELF interests/making himself out to be
'god' , but , in drawing nearer to the personal Creator in whos image
the person is made in and seeking a personal relationship with The
Creator which fills the void in life that was meant only for the
Creator to fill , instead of living how you want/living for
riches/living for prestige/ living for fame/ and living to get
feelings
satisfied , often by using others .
That is how people learn to become atheists, and, how they abandon it
if their WILL allows them to. People being 'born atheist' is a gross
fallacy and is just an excuse for distancing oneself from the Creator
whom they know must exist due to ones pride and willful rebellion.
Regards.
Nomen Publicus
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:63345e0f-6416-4f19...@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> more people are doing science now than ever
>> there were in the past. The rate of scientific
>> discovery is greater than ever before.
>
> This is true, and as time advances we can see
> how nonsensical the atheistic idea actually is,
> because it does not square with new scientific
> discoveries which are pointing to a Creator.
>
> "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and
> benevolent design lie around us ..The atheistic
> idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into
> words." -- Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267
Died in 1907
>
> "The theory of evolution suffers from grave
> defects, which are more and more apparent
> as time advances. It can no longer square
> with practical scientific knowledge."
> -- Dr.A Fleishmann, Zoologist
>
Died in 1942
Any quotes from living scientists who might just know a bit more about
_modern_ evolutionary science?
--
Atheist: One who denies, or disbelieves in, the existence of gods.
Dan Listermann
Nomen Publicus
> It happened the same way it happens for all who become atheists
> : A child of 4-7 years old looks around and asks where we came from,
> how did the universe get here, what is our purpose in being here ,
> and
> what happens after we die (physically) . The child intrinsically
> knows that existence implies a creator and design implies a Designer
Don't know much about child development do you?
--
Evolution is a mathematically based theory. If you don't understand
statistics you will never properly understand evolution.
ilbe...@gmail.com
> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Specific designs to accomplish a specific purpose which have been
scientifically confirmed (over 250 razor edge precise life-enabling
Physics Constants all needed in our Cosmos for earth to be here so we
can live here) , are not fantasys. That is reality. The fantasy is
hoping there is no personal Designer/Creator and hoping blind
naturalism can pull it off , so one can delay being morally
accountable to the Owner of the Universe to whom each shall meet.
Tim Miller
> Specific designs to accomplish a specific purpose which have been
> scientifically confirmed (over 250 razor edge precise life-enabling
> Physics Constants all needed in our Cosmos for earth to be here so we
> can live here) , are not fantasys.
There are no "designs". There is no "purpose". And there are NOT
"over 250 razor edge precise life-enabling Physics Constants all
needed in our Cosmos for earth to be here".
You can continue to MAKE that unsupported assertion until you're
blue in the face, but that doesn't change the FACTS.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> No Sir ; no one is born an atheist . Not even a child has enough
> faith to be an atheist.
Logical fallacy: Circulum In Demonstrando. The existence of "God" is
assumed in the premise of your argument, and all that follows is
therefore flawed.
> .but heres how you become an 'alleged'
> atheist :
>
> It happened the same way it happens for all who become atheists
>: A child of 4-7 years old looks around and asks where we came from,
(A: We don't know, other than the scientific fact of evolution. But even
evolution doesn't address the origin of life.)
> how did the universe get here,
(A: We don't know. The present array and motions of celestial bodies
suggest everything we know now began at a single point in space-time.
But there is no way to know exactly how that point arrived in space-time,
or what transpired before that point.)
> what is our purpose in being here ,
(A: Don't waste time in pondering "why", instead focus on "how".)
> and what happens after we die (physically).
(A: There is no way to know, other than what living people observe, and
that would be the fact that life ends.)
These are the honest answers. Christians, and those belonging to other
religions, prefer to make up answers to these questions. Those are
dishonest answers, otherwise known as LIES since they are masqueraded as
TRUTH.
> The child intrinsically
> knows that existence implies a creator and design implies a Designer
No, this is what the child is *taught* because its parents don't have
real answers to its questions, and are, themselves, under the influence
of the dogma and doctrine they were taught by their parents. If what you
said is true, we would have billions of creator beliefs, not just the
thousands we see today.
<SNIP remainder of your logically flawed argument>
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
Uncle Vic
>> more people are doing science now than ever
>> there were in the past. The rate of scientific
>> discovery is greater than ever before.
>
> This is true, and as time advances we can see
> how nonsensical the atheistic idea actually is,
> because it does not square with new scientific
> discoveries which are pointing to a Creator.
Yet you fail to demonstrate which scientific discoveries point to a
creator, or point us to any evidence whatsoever for the existence of a
creator.
We are quite obviously not like you - we cannot just take your word for it.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
>
> Specific designs to accomplish a specific purpose which have been
> scientifically confirmed (over 250 razor edge precise life-enabling
> Physics Constants all needed in our Cosmos for earth to be here so we
> can live here) , are not fantasys. That is reality. The fantasy is
> hoping there is no personal Designer/Creator and hoping blind
> naturalism can pull it off , so one can delay being morally
> accountable to the Owner of the Universe to whom each shall meet.
>
IlBeBauck once again demonstrates the only thing he is capable of
demonstrating: that he believes repeating the same nonsense over and
over again makes it become true. Especially when he closes his eyes,
inserts his index fingers into his ears, and yells "La-la-la-la, I can't
hear you."
Ken
the usual Daveshite
This retarded throwback has to rely upon lies and deciept to bolster
any
self-image among those he has never met in real life. He trolls and
bullshits his way through life despite his dysfunctional antisocial
personality, such that it is
Syd
> "Dan Listermann" wrote in messagenews:6e19c$4a4e2f50$4a53bf9f$23...@FUSE.NET...
Damn, you just won't stop lying, will you?
PDW
Syd
> On Jul 3, 10:14 am, Ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 7:54 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > Matt Young doesn't think so:http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/07/post-29.html#more
>
> > > He wonders if atheists and agnostics are more inclined to science than
> > > believers. Creation snits, of course, would rather do what they do
> > > best and outright LIE about it without pretending they can offer a
> > > shred of support for their claims.
>
> > > But the biggest give-away to the creation snit lie is actually this:
> > > more people are doing science now than ever there were in the past.
> > > The rate of scientific discovery is greater than ever before.
>
> > > Yet the proportion of atheists to beleivers isn't exactly sky-
> > > rocketing.
>
> > > So yes, once again, creation snits are proven to be nothing but
> > > vacuous liars. No surprises there.
>
> > > Budikkahei
>
> > Everyone is born an atheist.
> > As kids grow up, many are brainwashed by adults into accepting on
> > faith whatever bogus fairy tale they get fed.
> > The intelligent ones soon realize there's no Santa, no Easter Bunny,
> > no Tooth Fairy, no Great Pumpkin, no Fairy Godparents, no all-seeing-
> > eye watching over them and definately no sky pixie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No Sir ; no one is born an atheist .
So, your gonna lie too, eh?
Figures.
You fundy types are the enemy of truth.
PDW
Andrew
> Do the world a favor: keep your religion to yourself. Don't bother us, and
> we will not bother you.
>
> -- B
I support you in defending freedom of religion, and freedom -from- religion.
That is why I am against the popular pseudoscientific, speculative origin myth
that is presented to the public and to the kids in school, as if it were a religion;
not permitting an alternative model with the -evidence- thereof.
"I was a young man with unformed ideas, I threw
out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time
over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas
took like wildfire. People made a religion out of
them"
-- Darwin
Dan Listermann
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f59ce416-262e-49cc...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
"Specific designs to accomplish a specific purpose which have been
scientifically confirmed (over 250 razor edge precise life-enabling
Physics Constants all needed in our Cosmos for earth to be here so we
can live here) , are not fantasys. That is reality. The fantasy is
hoping there is no personal Designer/Creator and hoping blind
naturalism can pull it off , so one can delay being morally
accountable to the Owner of the Universe to whom each shall meet."
Entertain me. Tell me your very best razor edge precise life-enabling
Physics Constant. Only one out of 250 , right?
Dan Listermann
"Nomen Publicus" <zza...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote in message
news:heq1i6-...@buffy.sighup.org.uk...
> In talk.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in message
>> news:63345e0f-6416-4f19...@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> more people are doing science now than ever
>>> there were in the past. The rate of scientific
>>> discovery is greater than ever before.
>>
>> This is true, and as time advances we can see
>> how nonsensical the atheistic idea actually is,
>> because it does not square with new scientific
>> discoveries which are pointing to a Creator.
>>
>> "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and
>> benevolent design lie around us ..The atheistic
>> idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into
>> words." -- Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267
>
> Died in 1907
>
>>
>> "The theory of evolution suffers from grave
>> defects, which are more and more apparent
>> as time advances. It can no longer square
>> with practical scientific knowledge."
>> -- Dr.A Fleishmann, Zoologist
>>
>
> Died in 1942
>
Fleishmann was considered a crack pot in his own lifetime.
Dan Listermann
Tim Miller
> "Mr. B" wrote in message news:h2ld52$2bv$1...@news.gabrix.ath.cx...
>
>> Do the world a favor: keep your religion to yourself. Don't bother us, and
>> we will not bother you.
>>
>> -- B
>
> I support you in defending freedom of religion, and freedom -from- religion.
>
> That is why I am against the popular pseudoscientific, speculative origin myth
Ahh, you're against "intelligent design".
Good for you!
Dan Listermann
"Nomen Publicus" <zza...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote in message
news:nps1i6-...@buffy.sighup.org.uk...
Interestingly, probabibility and statistics' mother science is not
mathematics as might be expected. It is actually biology, genetics to be
specific.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Mr. B" wrote in message news:h2ld52$2bv$1...@news.gabrix.ath.cx...
>
>> Do the world a favor: keep your religion to yourself. Don't bother us, and
>> we will not bother you.
>>
>> -- B
>
>I support you in defending freedom of religion, and freedom -from- religion.
It doesn't show, lying hypocrite.
>That is why I am against the popular pseudoscientific, speculative origin myth
>that is presented to the public and to the kids in school, as if it were a religion;
>not permitting an alternative model with the -evidence- thereof.
What "popular pseudoscientific, speculative origin myth that is
presented to the public and to the kids in school, as if it were a
religion" are you lying about, serial liar?
What "alternative model" with what "evidence" are you lying about,
serial liar?
Don't you feel embarrassed with your stupidity so bad it insults the
intelligence of those you expect to take it seriously?
Mark Evans
What are these 250 razor edge constants? I find them invoked often by
people who can not list them.
And, if the universe is designed for life, why is 99.999999+ of it so
hostile to life? Heck, most of it is pretty much empty except for the
occasional hydrogen atom. On figures alone you can make a good
argument that it is empty of life.
Mark Evans
Tim Miller
He DID mention "the number of planets" once. Other than that,
he's been strangely quiet.
Smiler
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Matt Young doesn't think so:
>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/07/post-29.html#more
>>
>> He wonders if atheists and agnostics are more inclined to science
>> than believers. Creation snits, of course, would rather do what
>> they do best and outright LIE about it without pretending they can
>> offer a shred of support for their claims.
>
> posting I replied to, in 1991.
>
> The response hasn't changed - when there is no reason to believe
> something then one doesn't.
>
> And the "reasons" theists imagine why they believe are
> rationalisations not reasons.
>
> The most common reason is that they were conditioned to believe in
> their formative years.
>
Airhead Conditioning?
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
Andy W
Wow, you really are quite amazingly stupid. I reckon if I took a rock
and trained it for a year to be really stupid it would still be
smarter than you.
Andy
Ken
> Wow, you really are quite amazingly stupid. I reckon if I took a rock
> and trained it for a year to be really stupid it would still be
> smarter than you.
>
> Andy
It's already been tried.
The rock beat out dumbwitted dave by 120 IQ points
Syd
> "Mr. B" wrote in messagenews:h2ld52$2bv$1...@news.gabrix.ath.cx...
> > Do the world a favor: keep your religion to yourself. Don't bother us, and
> > we will not bother you.
>
> > -- B
>
> I support you in defending freedom of religion, and freedom -from- religion.
>
> That is why I am against the popular pseudoscientific,
And yet, you subscribe to the ultimate pseudoscience, creationism.
PDW
johac
<63345e0f-6416-4f19...@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Matt Young doesn't think so:
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/07/post-29.html#more
>
> He wonders if atheists and agnostics are more inclined to science than
> believers. Creation snits, of course, would rather do what they do
> best and outright LIE about it without pretending they can offer a
> shred of support for their claims.
>
> But the biggest give-away to the creation snit lie is actually this:
> more people are doing science now than ever there were in the past.
> The rate of scientific discovery is greater than ever before.
>
> Yet the proportion of atheists to beleivers isn't exactly sky-
> rocketing.
>
> So yes, once again, creation snits are proven to be nothing but
> vacuous liars. No surprises there.
As usual he has things bass ackwards. I became interested in science
long before I became an atheist. I became an atheist when I studied the
teaching of my religion at the time and other religions and found them
incomprehensible, illogical, and just plain dumb. I then studied the
history of religion and was appalled at the monstrous atrocities
committed in its name. Lastly science taught me that gods were not
necessary for the creation or maintenance of the universe. And so I
became an atheist.
>
> Budikka
--
John #1782
Sla#s
<SNIP>>
> And, if the universe is designed for life, why is 99.999999+ of it so
> hostile to life? Heck, most of it is pretty much empty except for the
> occasional hydrogen atom. On figures alone you can make a good
> argument that it is empty of life.
Yes - If it was "Designed for life" it would be full of Dyson Spheres or the
like!
Slatts