if evolution exists then why isn't bread peopel?
athiests: 0
god : 1

Yog Sothoth said
seriously? you're calling me not a philosopher because of your grammar Nazism? a philosopher is someone who studies philosophy, it doesn't say anywhere about grammar. the insult about my grammar is the sign of using bad tactics to win an argument.

Guys, I'm sorry for the echoes in here.

I can't help but notice I've made a lot of double posts.

Kadaeux said
You call bullshit? Sure. I present Article 1 of Evidence you're incabable of properly articulating yourself.We have zero counts of sentences properly beginning with capital letters. We have multiple counts of large run-on sentences. We have multiple counts of criminal abuse of a comma.We have numerous accounts of baseless supposition.Oh yes. And the PRIMARY piece of said evidence.A giant block of text that should have been broken up into multiple paragraphs.

seriously? you're calling me not a philosopher because of your grammar Nazism? a philosopher is someone who studies philosophy, it doesn't say anywhere about grammar. the insult about my grammar is the sign of using bad tactics to win an argument.

Brovo said
He didn't suggest anything of the sort Yog. He just said you don't really understand science, and that's not a crime, or an insult. He's just stating you likely don't understand how something works. That's fine. There are plenty of things I don't understand, there are plenty of things he doesn't understand, plenty of things that people all over the planet don't understand. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something.Nobody is doing that in this thread. Gwazi may have overreacted but he by no means wants to dehumanize religious people. He was one once, he's just angry about it. That's all. There's nothing wrong with anger and he came to his senses and pulled back when it was explained to him what he was doing wrong.As for science... The scientific method at its core is really and truly this: To find physical evidence (as defined as being something observable, verifiable, repeatable, etc) and create a theory based upon that evidence. We found the fossils of dinosaurs, so we know they probably existed. The fine details may be out of our grasp, but we can get the crude idea of what they were like. The T-Rex for example has rows of sharp teeth: That's customary for a predatory animal. Ergo, the T-Rex was probably a carnivore.Which is why Creationism is not a science and Paleotology is. Paleotology finds evidence and attempts to fit that into the puzzle to create a greater understanding of the world around us. Creationism starts with a premise, and tries to prove it... .

i would like to point out that in today's world people are treated as inferior because they lack understanding, which is why I make criticisms of ignorant atheists. also in my opinion, being angry does not give one the right to be ignorant, that is called double standards and is why it is harder to break down prejudices. bullies are the way they are usually because they themselves have been bullied, does that give them the right to hurt other people? no it doesn't. there should never be an excuse for ignorance.

Brovo said
He didn't suggest anything of the sort Yog. He just said you don't really understand science, and that's not a crime, or an insult. He's just stating you likely don't understand how something works. That's fine. There are plenty of things I don't understand, there are plenty of things he doesn't understand, plenty of things that people all over the planet don't understand. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something.Nobody is doing that in this thread. Gwazi may have overreacted but he by no means wants to dehumanize religious people. He was one once, he's just angry about it. That's all. There's nothing wrong with anger and he came to his senses and pulled back when it was explained to him what he was doing wrong.As for science... The scientific method at its core is really and truly this: To find physical evidence (as defined as being something observable, verifiable, repeatable, etc) and create a theory based upon that evidence. We found the fossils of dinosaurs, so we know they probably existed. The fine details may be out of our grasp, but we can get the crude idea of what they were like. The T-Rex for example has rows of sharp teeth: That's customary for a predatory animal. Ergo, the T-Rex was probably a carnivore.Which is why Creationism is not a science and Paleotology is. Paleotology finds evidence and attempts to fit that into the puzzle to create a greater understanding of the world around us. Creationism starts with a premise, and tries to prove it... .

i would like to point out that in today's world people are treated as inferior because they lack understanding, which is why I make criticisms of ignorant atheists. also in my opinion, being angry does not give one the right to be ignorant, that is called double standards and is why it is harder to break down prejudices. bullies are the way they are usually because they themselves have been bullied, does that give them the right to hurt other people? no it doesn't. there should never be an excuse for ignorance.

Yog Sothoth said
seriously? you're calling me not a philosopher because of your grammar Nazism? a philosopher is someone who studies philosophy, it doesn't say anywhere about grammar. the insult about my grammar is the sign of using bad tactics to win an argument.

No. A philosopher is someone who studies philosophy and can articulate themselves clearly enough to others. You clearly cannot articulate yourself clearly. You accuse others of conducting personal attacks, and yet you're the first to do so.

I'm not saying you're not a philosopher. I'm saying that if you are, which I doubt, you're so painfully terrible at conveying information that you should give it up, sooner than later.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Guys, I'm sorry for the echoes in here. I can't help but notice I've made a lot of double posts.

I noticed. How strange is it not? Maybe it's a sign from the great and almighty Fonz that certain uncool activities were becoming prevalent within these hollowed halls dedicated unto his glorious name and has taken it upon himself whilst jumping the shark to inform us that this thread has jumped the shark into the sun.

Or maybe it's server lag.

Yog Sothoth said seriously? you're calling me not a philosopher because of your grammar Nazism? a philosopher is someone who studies philosophy, it doesn't say anywhere about grammar. the insult about my grammar is the sign of using bad tactics to win an argument.

A significant part of philosophy isn't just learning it, it's the ability to understand it and CONVEY it to other people. Your complete lack of ability to do so means that if you ARE a philosopher you should give it up and take a career more suited to your natural talents. Like Janitor. I would have said McDonalds Burger Flipper, but I'm not sure you'd be able to convey the customers orders adequately.

I'm not "using bad tactics to win an argument" I'm pointing out your inability to form a coherent and easily understood sentence means you don't HAVE an argument.

Brovo said
He didn't suggest anything of the sort Yog. He just said you don't really understand science, and that's not a crime, or an insult. He's just stating you likely don't understand how something works. That's fine. There are plenty of things I don't understand, there are plenty of things he doesn't understand, plenty of things that people all over the planet don't understand. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something. Nobody is doing that in this thread. Gwazi may have overreacted but he by no means wants to dehumanize religious people. He was one once, he's just angry about it. That's all. There's nothing wrong with anger and he came to his senses and pulled back when it was explained to him what he was doing wrong.As for science... The scientific method at its core is really and truly this: To find physical evidence (as defined as being something observable, verifiable, repeatable, etc) and create a theory based upon that evidence. We found the fossils of dinosaurs, so we know they probably existed. The fine details may be out of our grasp, but we can get the crude idea of what they were like. The T-Rex for example has rows of sharp teeth: That's customary for a predatory animal. Ergo, the T-Rex was probably a carnivore.Which is why Creationism is not a science and Paleotology is. Paleotology finds evidence and attempts to fit that into the puzzle to create a greater understanding of the world around us. Creationism starts with a premise, and tries to prove it... .

i would like to point out that in today's world people are treated as inferior because they lack understanding, which is why I make criticisms of ignorant atheists. also in my opinion, being angry does not give one the right to be ignorant, that is called double standards and is why it is harder to break down prejudices. bullies are the way they are usually because they themselves have been bullied, does that give them the right to hurt other people? no it doesn't. there should never be an excuse for ignorance. as for science, i understand the purpose of science, but i am going to mention that not all scientist except new theories and ideas on how things are done. hell i have friends who a total science nuts who almost extremely believe in Einstein's laws of physics and consider it infallible. but remember Einstein was fervently ridiculed and insulted by his German peers for his theory of relativity which was a scientific model different from the traditional Newton model. the same thing goes for the first people to get an idea that the earth was round and not flat, and that our planet orbited around the sun. they had no true way of proving it but they made educated guesses. our sciences exist today because of observation and educated guesswork. our skepticism and opinions exist because these individuals took a leap of faith with their theory and it turned out to be accurate. in a sense religion is created out of observation, people saw the world around them and made their own ideas on how these things came to be.

Kadaeux said
No. A philosopher is someone who studies philosophy and can articulate themselves clearly enough to others. You clearly cannot articulate yourself clearly. You accuse others of conducting personal attacks, and yet you're the first to do so.I'm not saying you're not a philosopher. I'm saying that if you are, which I doubt, you're so painfully terrible at conveying information that you should give it up, sooner than later.

being articulate applies more to talking in real life, and I don't think be absolutely grammatically correct makes you a better philosopher, just the same as you don't have to be a J.R.R Tolken to be a writer, it is called having your own style.

Alex said
if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?checkmate athiests

This question has me curious. Any evolutionist want to take that one? it was rather...overlooked, or it was server lag.

Kadaeux said
A significant part of philosophy isn't just learning it, it's the ability to understand it and CONVEY it to other people. Your complete lack of ability to do so means that if you ARE a philosopher you should give it up and take a career more suited to your natural talents. Like Janitor. I would have said McDonalds Burger Flipper, but I'm not sure you'd be able to convey the customers orders adequately.I'm not "using bad tactics to win an argument" I'm pointing out your inability to form a coherent and easily understood sentence means you don't HAVE an argument.

nice job with showing how much of an asshole you are. like i said, atheists like you are the reason why people get pissed at atheism. keep responding like that and you're just proving my point.

Kadaeux said
A significant part of philosophy isn't just learning it, it's the ability to understand it and CONVEY it to other people. Your complete lack of ability to do so means that if you ARE a philosopher you should give it up and take a career more suited to your natural talents. Like Janitor. I would have said McDonalds Burger Flipper, but I'm not sure you'd be able to convey the customers orders adequately.I'm not "using bad tactics to win an argument" I'm pointing out your inability to form a coherent and easily understood sentence means you don't HAVE an argument.

nice way of showing how much of an asshole you are. you're just proving my point about how atheist like you are ignorant dicks like the religious extremists.

Kadaeux said
A significant part of philosophy isn't just learning it, it's the ability to understand it and CONVEY it to other people. Your complete lack of ability to do so means that if you ARE a philosopher you should give it up and take a career more suited to your natural talents. Like Janitor. I would have said McDonalds Burger Flipper, but I'm not sure you'd be able to convey the customers orders adequately.I'm not "using bad tactics to win an argument" I'm pointing out your inability to form a coherent and easily understood sentence means you don't HAVE an argument.

nice way of showing how much of an asshole you are. you're just proving my point about how atheist like you are ignorant dicks like the religious extremists.

Kadaeux said
A significant part of philosophy isn't just learning it, it's the ability to understand it and CONVEY it to other people. Your complete lack of ability to do so means that if you ARE a philosopher you should give it up and take a career more suited to your natural talents. Like Janitor. I would have said McDonalds Burger Flipper, but I'm not sure you'd be able to convey the customers orders adequately.I'm not "using bad tactics to win an argument" I'm pointing out your inability to form a coherent and easily understood sentence means you don't HAVE an argument.

nice way of showing how much of an asshole you are. you're just proving my point about how atheist like you are ignorant dicks like the religious extremists.

Kadaeux said
A significant part of philosophy isn't just learning it, it's the ability to understand it and CONVEY it to other people. Your complete lack of ability to do so means that if you ARE a philosopher you should give it up and take a career more suited to your natural talents. Like Janitor. I would have said McDonalds Burger Flipper, but I'm not sure you'd be able to convey the customers orders adequately.I'm not "using bad tactics to win an argument" I'm pointing out your inability to form a coherent and easily understood sentence means you don't HAVE an argument.

nice way of showing how much of an asshole you are. you're just proving my point about how atheist like you are ignorant dicks like the religious extremists. you sir are sad and pathetic

Kadaeux said
A significant part of philosophy isn't just learning it, it's the ability to understand it and CONVEY it to other people. Your complete lack of ability to do so means that if you ARE a philosopher you should give it up and take a career more suited to your natural talents. Like Janitor. I would have said McDonalds Burger Flipper, but I'm not sure you'd be able to convey the customers orders adequately.I'm not "using bad tactics to win an argument" I'm pointing out your inability to form a coherent and easily understood sentence means you don't HAVE an argument.

nice way of showing how much of an asshole you are. you're just proving my point about how atheist like you are ignorant dicks like the religious extremists. you sir are sad and pathetic

Yog Sothoth said
nice job with showing how much of an asshole you are. like i said, atheists like you are the reason why people get pissed at atheism. keep responding like that and you're just proving my point.

*Slowclap*

Nice job dumbass. I'm not an Atheist.

And it's not being an "asshole" to point out that your argument is unintelligible to the point that any so-called "philosophy" you've applied is diluted to the point where it ceased to be philosophy and started to be just a dumb, poorly formatted, poorly thought out opinion.

Yog Sothoth said
nice job with showing how much of an asshole you are. like i said, atheists like you are the reason why people get pissed at atheism. keep responding like that and you're just proving my point.

*Slowclap*

Nice job dumbass. I'm not an Atheist.

And it's not being an "asshole" to point out that your argument is unintelligible to the point that any so-called "philosophy" you've applied is diluted to the point where it ceased to be philosophy and started to be just a dumb, poorly formatted, poorly thought out opinion.

Yog Sothoth said
nice way of showing how much of an asshole you are. you're just proving my point about how atheist like you are ignorant dicks like the religious extremists. you sir are sad and pathetic

*Slowclap*

Nice job dumbass. I'm not an Atheist.

And it's not being an "asshole" to point out that your argument is unintelligible to the point that any so-called "philosophy" you've applied is diluted to the point where it ceased to be philosophy and started to be just a dumb, poorly formatted, poorly thought out opinion.

Yog Sothoth said
being articulate applies more to talking real life, and I don't think be absolutely grammatically correct makes you a better philosopher, just the same as you don't have to be a J.R.R Tolken to be a writer, it is called having your own style.

There is a difference between "not being absolutely grammatically correct" and "molesting the English language with a rusty rake." Of which you are doing the latter consistently.

You don't "have your own style" unless your idea of "style" is to bunch up a lot of words into a rough brick-like shape and bludgeon people in the face with it.

Yog Sothoth said
i would like to point out that in today's world people are treated as inferior because they lack understanding, which is why I make criticisms of ignorant atheists. also in my opinion, being angry does not give one the right to be ignorant, that is called double standards and is why it is harder to break down prejudices. bullies are the way they are usually because they themselves have been bullied, does that give them the right to hurt other people? no it doesn't. there should never be an excuse for ignorance. as for science, i understand the purpose of science, but i am going to mention that not all scientist except new theories and ideas on how things are done. hell i have friends who a total science nuts who almost extremely believe in Einstein's laws of physics and consider it infallible. but remember Einstein was fervently ridiculed and insulted by his German piers for his theory of relativity which was a scientific model different from the traditional Newton model. the same thing goes for the first people to get an idea that the earth was round and not flat, and that our planet orbited around the sun. they had no true way of knowing that it was true but they made educated guesses. our sciences exist today because of observation and educated guesswork. our skepticism and opinions exist because these individuals took a leap of faith with their theory and it turned out to be accurate. in a sense religion is created out of observation, people saw the world around them and made their own ideas on how these things came to be.

This is misinformed, if I think you are including Christopher Columbus

You see, ole' Chris didn't say the world was round, but it was pear shaped. A lot of ancient civilisations also suggested the world to be "Spherical" which is more accurate, really. It was die hard athiests(you know the equivalent to fanboys in the modern era) that suggested the world was flat.

Again, people are misinformed on a lot of things such as how the human body has only 5 senses, when we have ten more senses.

Also, please, this is getting off topic, and lets discuss the matter at hand.