Christian Nutjob Ben Carson says Science is Satanic

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-01-2015, 01:13 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."--Albert Einstein

One must be careful when interpreting this statement.  This was certainly not Einstein professing to be Atheist but rather an observation of how those that subscribe to a certain god, in this case a Jesuit priest, view those that do not subscribe to the same god.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2015, 01:13 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I didn't dispute he was not an atheist. He subscribed to the now mostly-abandoned god of Spinoza.

Doesn't change my point. You believe in the god of the Bible; therefore, whatever your interpretation of that god, your god has nothing in relation to what Einstein and Spinoza called "god".

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."--Albert Einstein

You would have angered Einstien by posting this quote:

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who says there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/154695-in-the-view-of-such-harmony-in-the-cosmos-which

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 12:34 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Evolution says man evolved from a common ancestor with primates, through a process that was, for lack of a better term, random. The bible says man was created by God, through a process that was by no means random. I simply don't see how it's possible to combine the two without taking away from each. I don't want to do that because of how much I respect both.

Ok, I'll ask you, why do you seem so angry? Don't say it's because of me, I saw some of your posts before I started posting, you and the other guy seemed angry.

Natural selection is not random.  Once again, explain the development of MRSA during your lifetime.  Your explanation will demonstrate how natural selection isn't random.  To people who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis they cannot unify evolution and Genesis.  To people who don't believe in a literal interpretation and who actually have an analytical mind it is quite easy to analyze both to understand how God created the universe in which organisms evolve as part of His plan.

I don't know why I seem angry to you.  "Seem" implies an impression.  And impression is an idea, feeling, or opinion.  Whose impression are you discussing?  Your's.  Therefore, I can't tell you why you have a certain impression about me or anything else.  Ask yourself why you feel the way you do.  (See, kid, this is what people who have an analytical nature do.  They analyze things.  The don't "try not to think" about stuff.  To analyze you have to think.  When you try not to think you are doing the opposite of analyzing.)

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 12:36 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: I didn't know pat Tillman was an atheist. Did he have any kids?

It is quite easy to find that answer, but how is that related to the fact Pat Tillman was an atheist and in the military?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 12:38 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: It's a saying. It implies that atheists turn to religion when they are scared.

I know it is a saying.  I asked how do you know.  Because in my experience, the idiom is false.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 12:44 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Ridiculous. Stalin was an atheist

The Inquisitions were all conducted by Christians.

What a show!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 12:46 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Not anymore, but I did at one point. Most of them grew out of it.

It's just a silly way to live, imo. It turns people into jaded, angry individuals.

How do you they are angry if you don't know any?

(10-01-2015, 12:17 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Stalin, by himself, is far worse than the KKK ever was.

What blows me away is how often I here atheists defend the likes of Stalin, Mao and pol pot

How do you hear people you don't know?

(10-01-2015, 12:18 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Well the atheists who don't grow out of it tend become leftists in their adult life.

How do you know the politics of people you don't know?

(10-01-2015, 12:47 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Remember when a member of obama's cabinet said Mao was her favorite philosopher?

Do you know her religion?  (Psst, not a cabinet member.)


This reminds me of the lie about the girl working the cash register at her family's restaurant who pretended to do homework whenever they had customers so the customers wouldn't know she was working the cash register.  Ah, good times.  Good times.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 12:28 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: First off, I'm done confirming things for you people

You have confirmed one thing one time.  Did you strain your medulla oblongata?

[Rotobeast]

(10-01-2015, 02:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The Inquisitions were all conducted by Christians.

What a show!

 

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 03:09 PM)Rotobeast Wrote:  

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-01-2015, 01:22 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: One must be careful when interpreting this statement.  This was certainly not Einstein professing to be Atheist but rather an observation of how those that subscribe to a certain god, in this case a Jesuit priest, view those that do not subscribe to the same god.  

I agree and that's why I said as much in that exact some post.

[Belsnickel]

(10-01-2015, 12:13 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: The way evolution has always been presented to me, is that part of the driving force behind it is mutation, which is random.

Something like 99% of mutations are bad and lead to the animal being unfit for survival, while 1% are beneficiary and lead to the animal out competing others and passing it's genes, which carry the mutation.

Didn't blue eyes in humans start as a mutation from one single person?

I missed this one earlier on my tablet. The most simple way to really get down to it is what defines randomness? We do, right? It means without an intelligible pattern or unpredictable. Is there anything unpredictable to God? Can an omnipotent entity not do things that appear random to us but are not really?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 12:13 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: The way evolution has always been presented to me, is that part of the driving force behind it is mutation, which is random.

Then you need to take a class in evolution at your "college."

Quote:Something like 99% of mutations are bad and lead to the animal being unfit for survival, while 1% are beneficiary and lead to the animal out competing others and passing it's genes, which carry the mutation.

This is a complete fabrication without any basis in fact.  Take a genetics class at your "college."

Quote:Didn't blue eyes in humans start as a mutation from one single person?

Did they?  Did Adam and Eve both have brown eyes?  Eve was made from Adam's rib so shouldn't they be genetically identical? Or did God change Adam's genome when he created Eve?  Oh, I know. . . You're such an analyzer you try not too analyze it because you have too much respect for evolution and Genesis.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 12:46 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Not anymore, but I did at one point. Most of them grew out of it.

It's just a silly way to live, imo. It turns people into jaded, angry individuals.

I think one of your other characters pointed out 83% of Americans are Christian. That means most people are indoctrinated into Christianity from birth. The majority of atheist grow out of Christianity, not into it.

Hmm, your opinion seems similar to someone else here.  It's like déjà vu all over again.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-01-2015, 01:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You would have angered Einstien by posting this quote:

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who says there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/154695-in-the-view-of-such-harmony-in-the-cosmos-which

Once again, your reading comprehension fails you. Imagine my surprise.

Why would Einstein be mad at me? Because I clearly said he was not an atheist?

Quote:they quote me for support of such views.

See that part? I didn't quote him to support atheism. I quoted him to support the fact that his concept of god was utterly foreign to anything like your anthropomorphic, Iron Age, good vs evil personal creator-god fables.

Now, if I considered you intelligent, I would attempt to explain what Spinoza's ideas about "god" were (and why they are no longer feasible or necessary). But his ideas were pretty complex; doubtless it would fly right over your head, due in large part to your noted inability to correctly interpret the words you read. So I'm afraid I won't be  bothered to waste my time.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2015, 10:16 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Once again, your reading comprehension fails you. Imagine my surprise.

Why would Einstein be mad at me? Because I clearly said he was not an atheist?

Help me out with my reading comprehension:

Where in that quote did he say he was angry at folks calling him an atheist?

Read the quote again more slowly, determine what he really said made him angry, and understand that you did just that.

Let me know when you understand. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-01-2015, 10:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Help me out with my reading comprehension:

Where in that quote did he say he was angry at folks calling him an atheist?

Read the quote again more slowly, determine what he really said made him angry, and understand that you did just that.

Let me know when you understand. 

I mean this sincerely: you really need to seek help with your reading challenges.

First, I never said Einstein said he was angry at folks calling him an atheist. I asked-sincerely-if you thought I was using Einstein to support my atheism because I clearly said he was not an atheist. I have to ask these things with you; you seem to exist in a land of opposites.

Second, had you finished reading the same exact post you quoted, you would have saw me respond directly to what Einstein said. Here, I'll quote the second half of that post and maybe you'll read it this time:

Quote:

Quote: Wrote:they quote me for support of such views.

See that part? I didn't quote him to support atheism. I quoted him to support the fact that his concept of god was utterly foreign to anything like your anthropomorphic, Iron Age, good vs evil personal creator-god fables.

Now, if I considered you intelligent, I would attempt to explain what Spinoza's ideas about "god" were (and why they are no longer feasible or necessary). But his ideas were pretty complex; doubtless it would fly right over your head, due in large part to your noted inability to correctly interpret the words you read. So I'm afraid I won't be  bothered to waste my time.

Okay? Read whole posts before responding to them. Don't give up the second you read a sentence you think you might have a clever response to and rush to type it up. Otherwise you will continue to make a fool of yourself like this, raising points that have already been struck down in the very same post you're responding to.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2015, 10:32 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I mean this sincerely: you really need to seek help with your reading challenges.

First, I never said Einstein said he was angry at folks calling him an atheist.

What have we here?

GodHatesBengals Wrote:Once again, your reading comprehension fails you. Imagine my surprise.

Why would Einstein be mad at me? Because I clearly said he was not an atheist?

You do realize mad and angry are synonyms don't you?

Your concerns about my literacy are touching, yet unfounded.

Please, please, please continue to tell others how foolish they look.  

[GodHatesBengals]

bfine32 Wrote:What have we here?

You do realize mad and angry are synonyms don't you?

Your concerns about my literacy are touching, yet unfounded.

Please, please, please continue to tell others how foolish they look.  

I asked why Einstein would be mad at me (as you said, a synonym of "angry") in direct response to this:

(10-01-2015, 10:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You would have angered Einstien by posting this quote

You made the claim Einstein (which you couldn't even spell, your reassurances about literacy aside) would have been "angered" by me. I paraphrased you. I have never claimed Einstein made that statement; I asked you why you made that statement that you have apparently forgotten you made.

Been drinking more than usual tonight?

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2015, 10:48 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I asked why Einstein would be mad at me (as you said, a synonym of "angry") in direct response to this:



You made the claim Einstein (which you couldn't even spell, your reassurances about literacy aside) would have been "angered" by me. I paraphrased you. I have never claimed Einstein made that statement; I asked you why you made that statement that you have apparently forgotten you made.

Been drinking more than usual tonight?

Please continue.