Jump to content

Angry atheists rant thread.

Recommended Posts

No need for me to counter that nonsense. Its ridiculousness is there in black & white for all to see.

 

You can't counter it because it is a fact the people share their thoughts and opinions through communication. Its the reason one person can know the opinions and thoughts of other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't counter it because it is a fact the people share their thoughts and opinions through communication. Its the reason one person can know the opinions and thoughts of other people.

 

This works, in your mind, because your generalisation of "atheists", to you, means only the ones you have spoken to. Because you have this misconception about language, ie saying (to you) that "Young people have a bad attitude" means only some young people (obvious in your eyes, because you haven't said all young people) it means that Lockjaw doesn't have to counter you, the flaw is rooted in how you (mis)understand language.

 

To most people such a generalisation would mean all or at least the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Such as how the first single cell with all its components to create life was formed, and how that process began.

 

The field of abiogenesis is vast and ever expanding. Unfortunately there are two main stumbling blocks in determining exactly how life began, these are:

1. We don't know what the exact conditions were on Earth several billion years ago. We can make an educated guess but will probably never know for sure.

2. It's difficult to perform an experiment that is several million years long.

 

So, whilst we may be able to demonstrate how life CAN start, it won't necessarily be how life DID start. Which will always leave room for God did it.

 

Here are a few papers to get you going in the field:

 

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chemistry/calilasseia-78-papers-on-abiogenesis-t845.html

 

jb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a final comment about evolution. I've read where 50% of British people don't fully understand the concept of evolution in spite of it being taught to us in early education.

Anyway I've just viewed this informative webpage explaining about it in detail without going into it too deeply, for anyone interested.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

 

---------- Post added 18-11-2013 at 14:54 ----------

 

The field of abiogenesis is vast and ever expanding. Unfortunately there are two main stumbling blocks in determining exactly how life began, these are:

1. We don't know what the exact conditions were on Earth several billion years ago. We can make an educated guess but will probably never know for sure.

2. It's difficult to perform an experiment that is several million years long.

 

So, whilst we may be able to demonstrate how life CAN start, it won't necessarily be how life DID start. Which will always leave room for God did it.

 

Here are a few papers to get you going in the field:

 

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chemistry/calilasseia-78-papers-on-abiogenesis-t845.html

 

jb

Thanks for that, will read it later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a final comment about evolution. I've read where 50% of British people don't fully understand the concept of evolution in spite of it being taught to us in early education.

Anyway I've just viewed this informative webpage explaining about it in detail without going into it too deeply, for anyone interested.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

 

---------- Post added 18-11-2013 at 14:54 ----------

 

Thanks for that, will read it later.

It's just link listing a few academic papers, without access to the relevant journals you won't find much to read.

This, however, does make an interesting read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

jb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a final comment about evolution. I've read where 50% of British people don't fully understand the concept of evolution in spite of it being taught to us in early education.

 

I'd suspect even more than that don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, or quantum theory despite that being taught in schools as well. Not everyone gets to be a rocket scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a final comment about evolution. I've read where 50% of British people don't fully understand the concept of evolution in spite of it being taught to us in early education.

Anyway I've just viewed this informative webpage explaining about it in detail without going into it too deeply, for anyone interested.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

 

 

Janie, another good website here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

And this has some great info too:

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This works, in your mind, because your generalisation of "atheists", to you, means only the ones you have spoken to. Because you have this misconception about language, ie saying (to you) that "Young people have a bad attitude" means only some young people (obvious in your eyes, because you haven't said all young people) it means that Lockjaw doesn't have to counter you, the flaw is rooted in how you (mis)understand language.

 

To most people such a generalisation would mean all or at least the majority.

 

People communicate their thoughts and opinions, this is the reason other people know what they think, it really isn't very complicated.

 

Islamic terrorists dressed in Nigerian military uniforms assaulted a college inside the country Sunday, gunning down dozens of students as they slept in their dorms and shot others trying to flee, witnesses say.

 

Note that the writer of this article didn't say all, every, or some But he is clearly not say every Islamic terrorists dressed in Nigerian military uniforms, it was just some of them, the writer didn't need to include some because it obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell that he means some and not all.

Edited by angos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This works, in your mind, because your generalisation of "atheists", to you, means only the ones you have spoken to. Because you have this misconception about language, ie saying (to you) that "Young people have a bad attitude" means only some young people (obvious in your eyes, because you haven't said all young people) it means that Lockjaw doesn't have to counter you, the flaw is rooted in how you (mis)understand language.

 

To most people such a generalisation would mean all or at least the majority.

 

No idea what this rant is on about.

 

Here's a hint...

 

Of course it applies, if you said that black people are criminals, would it clearly only apply to the ones that actually are criminals, or would you be better off stating that only some black people are criminals?

 

I wouldn't assume from that that you mean all black people, because you didn't say all black people are criminals.

 

Using your rules I can quite happily state that people who post on internet forums under the name angos are idiotic trolls, without having to worry about breaking the forum rules about abusing other posters :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a hint...

 

 

 

Using your rules I can quite happily state that people who post on internet forums under the name angos are idiotic trolls, without having to worry about breaking the forum rules about abusing other posters :)

 

 

 

It is clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that his statement didn't mean all.

 

 

In these two sentences the writer didn't include some, yet it is clear that only some Muslims attacked the cab driver, and some Muslims and some Buddhists clashed.

Only an idiot would think the writer is talking about all Buddhists and Muslims.

Edited by angos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that his statement didn't mean all.

 

Except it's not. There are numerous Christians who vehemently believe that all Atheists are out there to destroy their faith. [i've met one, and he's possibly one of the most repulsive people I've ever met, obviously never read the bit about love thy neighbour.] So, it's quite likely that he meant "all atheists", and that would be the understanding of most people.

 

Both of those headlines pray on that same misunderstanding, although most people would temper that to mean "all relevant" people of the groups - e.g. "all buddists and muslims in the area clashed after the attack", as opposed to every single one on the planet.

 

You know this, stop playing games. Either that or you're as bad as your namesakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except it's not. There are numerous Christians who vehemently believe that all Atheists are out there to destroy their faith. [i've met one, and he's possibly one of the most repulsive people I've ever met, obviously never read the bit about love thy neighbour.] So, it's quite likely that he meant "all atheists", and that would be the understanding of most people.

 

Both of those headlines pray on that same misunderstanding, although most people would temper that to mean "all relevant" people of the groups - e.g. "all buddists and muslims in the area clashed after the attack", as opposed to every single one on the planet.

 

You know this, stop playing games. Either that or you're as bad as your namesakes.

 

I did say one would need an ounce of intelligence for it to be clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.