as I have clearly demonstrated with this:

----------------------------------- ----------------------

”My, my....your motives make me believe in a Higher Power (and the powers trying to blind us to it) even more. Congratulations.”

My, my…. If the above quote isn’t your attempt to try and slight me then perhaps you should learn to consider what you say before you say it.

----------------------------------- -----------------------

I was not the first to be derogatory and I clearly labeled in my post how I would treat that. Saying the following In philosophy, one of the first signs that someone is getting frustrated and knows they cannot win an argument is to insult their opponent. is a sack of shiit. I'll have little trouble winning this argument, as you can see no one has even offered up anything against it yet. And no matter how my or others demeanor is, it doesn't change the logic or reason that is being put forth. By all means, some one put forth an argument... [Spenser]

My, my…. If the above quote isn’t your attempt to try and slight me then perhaps you should learn to consider what you say before you say it.

”And you said in your entry that you would treat whoever wanted to debate with respect.”

Two questions: Where exactly were you attempting to debate and per original quote, where is the respect?

”but I think you've met your match with me.”

Yeah right *eyes roll* …and this:

”This will be my last comment, as I don't consider you worthy of my thoughts. I don't think you understand them anyway.”

…is nothing but a cop out, coward. I probably wouldn’t understand them but that would only be due to their failure to adhere to logic and reason, not because you come anywhere close to matching me intellectually. Perhaps I might have thought you could if you would have offered any semblance of an argument but apparently you are too insecure to debate, would prefer to challenge my character (which has little to do with the existence of God) so go run and hide if it makes you fell better.

”Too much clean language for you.”

…and this helps to prove God how?

”He has given me more intelligence than this man!”

This is nothing more than a mere assertion that you have offered up zero evidence for. Prove it! Your silence can only prove you wrong; at least attempt to debate me or it will be obvious you lack the intelligence to do so. Oh, and before I go PHUCK GOD IN THE HIGHEST!!! (see how little that does to prove my argument *wink*) [Spenser]

Pray for my balls you dipshit and I hope you burn in hell ..i., [Spenser]

...and as for 'God is so real.' This is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. You have nothing to base this statement off of I would assume since you said nothing else. What originally made you think God existed? What, some one told you so? I wonder if you even read anything in my entry because why did you even bother to leave a comment that says nothing more than 'God is so real.' If that's the only ignorance you have to say to this whole entry you would have been better of saying nothing. Ooooo Female testicles are so real... [American Atheist]

Looking back I didn't even really notice the obvious joke of the anon comment. I guess I was a little wrapped up at when I read it... [Spenser]

If you are really the same anon then you totally got me. I was starting to wonder if anyone could really be that stupid. Those comments were like an endless groaner... [Spenser]

"Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches." - Thomas Aquinas

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation, all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, though religion were not; but superstition dismounts all these, and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men...the master of superstition is the people; and arguments are fitted to practice, in a reverse order." - Sir Francis Bacon

"The very concept of sin comes from the bible. Christianity offers to solve a problem of its own making! Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?" - Dan Barker

"Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." -Ambrose Bierce

"All religions have been made by men." - Napoleon Bonaparte

"If God wants us to do a thing, He should make his wishes sufficiently clear. Sensible people will wait till He has done this before paying much attention to Him." - Samuel Butler

"Of religion I know nothing -- at least, in its favor." - Lord Byron

"Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life." - Aristotle

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible [by which Paine means the Old Testament] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." - Thomas Paine

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." -Samuel Clemens "MArk Twain"

"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God." - Thomas Edison

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Albert Einstein [Spenser]

Evolutionary theory claims that simpler organisms evolve through time (billions and billions of years) into more complex organisms. Plenty of evidence for such things can be seen in rock layers. The deeper the rock layer excavated, the simpler the organisms. It is known through geology (and geologic observation) that through time dirt and rock layers build up over the ground and bury previous layers depending on weather conditions of the time, ice ages, droughts, geographic location (platectonics), Etc., the layers can then be identified and classified under a specific era. In every single documented case, older simpler organisms are located in the deeper rock layers that are associated with older eras in world history.

Now simply take the known fact that every single living known organism on the planet comes from a parent organism. If you trace back through time, through the rock layers, the only parents available are simple organisms. Through time the changes seen are minor steps towards being more complicated organisms. Through a shit load of time the number of new organisms and their complexity grew greatly. One is left to ask what parent those original simple, single cell organisms came from. Their chemical composition is so simple and composed of that which can be found in the environment around them, dub primordial soup, that it is much easier to believe that chemical reaction can create something that takes on the form of DNA, RNA, and other components of the simplest organism than it is to believe everything was created at the same time approx. 6000 years ago as is including billion year old bones and million year old fossils such as those of early hominids. The reason this cannot be duplicated in the lab today is the amount of time involved for such reaction to occur. We don't have a million years to wait around and watch the reaction of molecules, I'll be glad to live until I'm 80.

Evolutionary steps up the ladder can be compared by genetic study. Species created by a common ancestor generally have only one or very few different types genes from their ancestor. Some are still similar enough to mate even though classified as different species. Such is the case with the horse and the donkey who have a resulting offspring of a mule, but proof of them being different species is that all mules are sterile. If you don't believe this ask any farmer.

What is further perplexing to the theological community and to what I have never heard a solid argument against is the fossil evidence demonstrating proof of humans evolving from apes. Please explain Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and neanderthals. These finds clearly show evidence of evolution from an ancient ape like ancestor. In the steps between them developments can be seen like bipedalism, increased brain capacity, a more s curved spinal structure, development of our four basic blood types, and much more.

FACT: Deism's definition is conflicting with Xianity's definition. Any people who call themselves true deists and yet claim Xian ideologies are not true deists now are they. Why can't you stop phucking quoting people and speak for yourself? Or do you really lack the ability of thinking for yourself? [Spenser]

Apparently, the only evidence these people will accept in support of evolution would be to make cells or new species from scratch “in a test tube.” But to say that the only valid scientific conclusions are those that are founded on direct experiments is a fallacious, if popularly-held, idea.

Take smoking, for example. There is no direct, laboratory test that can prove that smoking causes cancer.

After all, how could investigators design a direct experiment to evaluate smoking’s effect on lung cancer? They would have to give one group real cigarettes, another group fake cigarettes, and see which ones develop cancer. Ethical problems of giving known carcinogens to humans aside, the study would be a logistical nightmare. (What is a fake cigarette anyway?)

Nevertheless, epidemiologists have amassed an extremely large body of knowledge demonstrating the health risks of smoking. They have carried out cohort studies and observed that a large proportion of smokers develop lung cancer. They have carried out case-control studies where large proportions of people with lung cancer were found to have smoked. One population-based study tracked the incidence of smoking and lung cancer over time and found that the data of the latter mirrored that of the former but displaced 30 years behind.

With studies like these, even without a direct experiment, doctors can say unequivocally that smoking causes lung cancer.

The application to evolution theory is obvious. Critics of evolution are quick to point out that scientists cannot use direct experiments to prove evolution. Knowing that evolution supposedly happened over eons and calling for controlled duplication of speciation in the laboratory, these people have congratulated themselves, confident that scientists could never carry out such a direct experiment. And, of course, we can’t. But, if we put the same restrictions on what makes valid evidence, we also can’t say that smoking causes lung cancer.

Anybody feel like lighting up?

Fact is, science uses many different types of studies besides direct experiments to establish evidence. No one has seen a quark, yet we can infer their existence by observing collisions between subatomic particles. Even without witnesses, people are often convicted of crimes based on inferential, after-the-fact evidence. Neither has anyone duplicated radical speciation in the lab. But whoever calls evolution invalid just because no such direct experiment has yet been performed in a laboratory should probably go smoke a cigarette. [Skeptic]

Your argument is absurd and holds absolutely no water. If that is your line of thinking then one must look at what you call God and ask the same question. What made him because something as complicated as that couldn't just exist without a maker (sound familiar). And then what made that maker, and the maker before that. If God can be thought eternal then just as easily can the universe (big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch). Your own argument doesn't even hold up to your own scrutiny. Besides, how would you explain how a half inch stock wild corn became a crop with abundant foot long cobs that do not resemble their wild creators much? Huh, I don't believe you ever actually addressed this.

Next, quoting a bunch of other people does nothing to argue the facts or the point of this whole diary. Like a Xian, I'm beginning to believe you don't have any thoughts of your own. What other people do or do not believe in doesn't mean shit if you cannot argue the point yourself and you present nothing. Great, so you claim deism came out of Xianity. So what, that doesn't change the definition of being a Deist. Xianity has very little to do with the ideologies of a deist and to claim otherwise is just stupidity. Just to preempt a stupid reply from you:

deism

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

This can be found at dictionary.com and clearly does not support xian ideologies at all. Rationality is a way of thinking, it was not created by anyone or any group. Rationality is a concept not an invention. You mention convert to Xianity as being a contradictory statement to Xianity having less hold on our society. Are you really that stupid? Yes the number of Xians in the world has gone up dramatically but then again so has the whole population of the world. Proportionally the percentage of Xians in the western world and the power they have over everyone's lives has gone down significantly. I can demonstrate this with simply saying phuck Jesus and not having to worry about my physical safety, I'm not likely to end up burned at the stake.

Amy Chu may argue religion and state, however this does not counter the argument of the first amendment as they are not the same countries. Sierra Leone is and always has been further behind in technology, education, and political structuring than the western world and the problems of Sierra Leone are probably more attributed to its 3rd world society than to religion. Either way, it has nothing to do with our country and is yet another poor basis of comparison. [Spenser]

What happened to the cowardly anon??? He got straight jacked! [Spenser]

Cum celebrate my 200th. [Spenser]

1. Leprechauns are real no matter what "evidence" appears to the contrary.

2. The blob is real no matter what "evidence" appears to the contrary.

3. Traveling faster than the speed of light is real no matter what "evidence" appears to the contrary.

4. A round square is real no matter what "evidence" appears to the contrary.

5. A good smelling fart is real no matter what "evidence" appears to the contrary.

6. The theory that the Yankees can still win the world series is real no matter what "evidence" appears to the contrary.

7. Antigravity shoes are real no matter what "evidence" appears to the contrary.

8. Winning the Ca Lotto by picking letters is real no matter what "evidence" appears to the contrary.

9. The concept that anons are brave and secure people is real no matter what "evidence" appears to the contrary.

10. The thought that Captain C doesn't have his head up his ass is real no matter what "evidence" appears to the contrary.

Get the picture? [American Atheist]

PS Oooo Hell, I'm shaking... [Spenser]

The quotation above may be Einstein's most familiar statement of his beliefs. These words are frequently quoted, but a citation is seldom given. The quotation can be found in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, The Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, Third Edition, 1970, pp 659 - 660. There the source is given as the New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4.Ronald W. Clark, however, in Albert Einstein The Life and Times (The World Publishing Company, New York and Cleveland, 1971, pp 413-414) gives a detailed account of the origin of Einstein's statement:

While the argument over his birthday present had been going on, the theory of relativity had been used to pull him into a religious controversy from which there emerged one of his much-quoted statements of faith. It began when Cardinal O'Connell of Boston, who had attacked Einstein's General Theory on previous occasions, told a group of Catholics that it "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His Creation." Einstein, who had often reiterated his remark of 1921 to Archbishop Davidson-"It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"-was at first uninterested. Then, on April 24, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, faced Einstein with the simple five-word cablegram: "Do you believe in God?" "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists," he replied, "not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Years later he expanded this in a letter to Solovine, the survivor of the Olympia Academy. "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "[But] I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason." [Spenser]

...a unique phenomena of electrical reactions that produce the effect of "anti gravity".

Did you completely miss the word "effect" you ignorant putz? [Spenser]

The hypothetical effect of reducing or canceling a gravitational field.

Not to often is something defined as hypothetical if it actually exists. Notice how it directly refers to gravitational fields and not electric or magnetic as they are not gravity and though they can be used to defy gravity, they are not the definition of antigravity so once again, you are wrong, stupid and hopelessly going to continue to argue this point forever. I will concede that there is much research that goes on over the topic of antigravity however nothing has come to pass as evidence for canceling a gravitational field, so much like your God, with out evidence it is more than reasonable to dismiss it as not existing and I have a feeling that if it was discovered that antigravity did exist, not only would we see it all over the news but it would be taught as common curriculum at accredited universities, and yet once again, much like creation, it’s not… [Spenser]

PS Was that last sentence long enough for you? Did you enjoy being proved wrong yet again? We'll find out shortly I'm sure... [Spenser]