Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: Ringside: Marc9000 v peeling - Evolution is Atheistic

  1. #31
    SpicyGirl Guest

    Talking

    Thanks a bunch. I've been so busy with work. But 'll submit it as soon as possible. Thanks for the oppurtunity.

  2. #32
    EDO Guest
    Good job, marc. You definitely won, like Spicygirl said. The other judges were definitely biased because you proved evolution was atheistic, which is soething they don't wnt to be known in public, because it will expose evolution as their religion.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by EDO View Post
    Good job, marc. You definitely won, like Spicygirl said. The other judges were definitely biased because you proved evolution was atheistic, which is soething they don't wnt to be known in public, because it will expose evolution as their religion.
    I'm unsure as to why you consider yourself a better judge than the two less biased judges whose views you are denying...
    God exists because the Bible says he does.
    The Bible is correct because it is the word of God.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Hi_Its_Me View Post
    I'm unsure as to why you consider yourself a better judge than the two less biased judges whose views you are denying...
    Does that matter? Isn't it obvious? You get your friends to vote you for and it allegedly makes every single one of our failures in the debate no longer matter. Exoneration through popularity. Quite stupid really, but what can you expect?
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    1

    A brief statement

    As someone to whom it has always been difficult to grasp why "faith" is considered to be an attribute I humbly would like to inquire as to how a previous author in this post (proclaiming to be a scientist) professed to "still believe in god."

    He went on to state that "I may have faith in those things I cannot touch while trusting the scientific method to tell me things about that which I can touch."

    Now, to me this seems like an obscenely hypocritical way of viewing the world. Scientists should realize better than anyone how "reality" transcends matter that you can actually 'lay your finger on' and to boldly assert that this warrants a blind acceptance (a.k.a. "faith") of some omnipotent deity leads me to one of two possible conclusions. Either this person is unaware that literally, faith in any form of science experimentation is unethical, or this person is a very bad scientist, such as a pseudo-scientist or a professor of divinity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •