Athiests

adm­in
Someone doesn't know how to get past word filters.

Greybeard, I am the Dovahkiin. Reveal to me your secrets.

­

See right there? I posted nothing there. It is an invisible, space less character. it is inserted between the next set of apastrophies '­' copy and paste everything between the '' in anything, and just copy the middle character by clicking on the right of both of the ' and arrow key 1 left, hold shift and press the arrow left key 1 time, at the same time. Press Ctrl and C at the same time, now whenever you type thum­bs, just press Ctrl and V, or right click paste, somewhere in the middle of the word.

If you wouldn't mind, please explain again, but simpler.
My mind of a third-grader is failing to comprehend this.

adm­in
thu­mbs
9g­ag
o­p
nig­ger
copy/paste them

thu­mbs

Thank you Greybeard.

Here is a sweetroll.
Don't let anyone steal it.

how?

"LOL OMG SO TRUE THIS TOTALLY HAPPENED TO ME THE OTHER DAY YOUR SO COOL LOLOLOLOLOLOL OMG 1337 LEET OMG FAPFAPFAPFAPFAP!!!!!!!!111111one"

kids...

Yeah we've all heard that before, but it's complete bullshit. Arguing over the internet is akin to arguing in reality, the difference is that it is entirely text based, and the fact that people are doing it homeuaxly means that they will not hold back from stating their full unmodified opinions. Things such as intimidation are not factors anymore. This being said, arguments/discussions over the internet are about as legit as it gets.
tl:dr? Bullshit

But that still doesn't change the fact that any kind of argument on the internet will inevitably degrade into a shouting match, and most people think that shouting matches = idiotic

well then it's an argument between idiots. I never lose my cool when arguing, Im hoping you wouldn't either.

Now you're getting down into the heart of the issue, the reason why internet arguments don't work: The internet is filled with idiots

Couldn't agree more!

But where are all the awnsers to those "raging athiest extremist shoves his believes down everyone elses throat" posts?

im atheist and i know one fundamental thing to science: the universe is more than a 7 day construction process

If you did, then you wouldn´t be a christian....

It´s as simple as that.

this guy is trolling. why are you toenail clippinging up his comment funnyjunk? knock that off.

when i read your coment, i hear russian music in the backround....

ahhh..... yayaya.....

Do I have to understand that?

Because I don´t....

listen to trololo on youtube.

I am not trolling. Look at your comments in this thread, who is the troll here?

I commented on a statement, that was ridiculous in my mind.

Anyway, have fun chasing "trolls" I guess.

Know that clip. Still can´t see a connection between russian music and my post...

Well, I don´t have to understand everything.

your going trolololo like that guy in the video. trolling. its funny you know... if you uhhh.... think about it.....

Because i'm religious i can't learn about the subject? T.R.O.L.L

No, of course not. But if you would have learned more about science, like you said you did, you would pretty quickly get that genesis, for example, is just a story and not more.

That the probability is so much higher that the earth developed itself over millions of years and was not magically created by a higher deity.

You mind would start to work more rational, you would start to formulate theories, and look to disprove or prove these theories. You would start to be unable to accept things as truth just on faith.

The mind of a scientist works very differently than the mind of a hardcore christian.

ERGO: If you ´d know more about science than op, then you wouldn´t be a christian.

Now, IF you decide to answer, then please try to use arguments instead of personal accusations. Like I did above, see?

no no no. If i knowalot about Since, it's not going to shake my faith, for my faith is strong. What your saying is like
"You like bananas better, but apples taste better to you, so you should stop liking bananas better.

Wow. Is that your try at logic? I don´t even want to get into the bananas and apples part in the end there.

So, as you "knowalot" about "Since", you´d still favor the theory of genesis over the theory of a planet that developed over time?

I am honestly interested in your arguments pro genesis! And I am not kidding about this, please share this with me.

I assume of course that you actually have read a science book, like you said you did.

you're coming off as a bit of an asshole, i hope you're not displeased with me.
It's just faith man. Our will to believe in something is great. This is as simple asi can put it my friend.

Ok. And again you cannot respond with arguments. Do you see how frustrating it is to "discuss" with religious people?

This is what it feels like:

"Hey dude, I think 1+1 equals 2, do you agree?"

"NO, that can´t be because I like jellybeans!"

See?

I give up. You obviously haven´t read a science related book in your life.

Believe what you want to believe, I don´t care. But do not expect us to leave your BS lines uncommented.

this is what it really feels like.

"I'm religious and know about science."

"NUH AW! YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOU ARE RELIGIOUS AND I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT!"
your logic is fun! ;P

Ok then. let´s talk about science then, like I wanted to before?

Name arguments pro genesis. Because that is how science works, you know?

You formulate a thesis, and then you look for FACTS that support that argument.

That is science. You have refused to bring anything relevant to the table so far. Except, I believe.

If you know about science, like you repeatedly said, then you should be able to discuss topics by using facts. So far it doesn´t really seem that way, you know?

Argument Genesis. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is.It’ s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof.There is more evidence for the world being less than 10,000 years old than billions or millions of years old. (Therefore not even the age of the Earth is precise by who knows how many years.)No one knows how old the Earth is in truth, so something like the current theory of revolution can't be facted quite yet, for the current theory Evolution is required to take place over millions of years. This is a valid argument that most scientists seem to ignore. I feel as those more attention should be pushed towards it.

NOW we are getting somewhere. I honestly thank you and applaud you for trying.

Please name the evidence for the world being less than 10.000 years old. I am honestly interested.

To start this off, I will post a FACT against that theory: The FACT that radiocarbon dating is even possible. This method does obivously not work to look millions of years into the past, but it goes way beyond the 10.000 years that you claim.

Here is a link if you would like to get more detailed information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio...

Sorry for not replying. The ink you gave me was super interesting and i clicked on the Skeleton lake link before i realized we were talking.
Any way proof for a young Earth
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12 Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.

Thanks a lot! We are getting deep into it now, I like it.

I did a little research on that assumption, and it seems that there are a couple of problems.

Did a study ever conclude that the sun appeared to be shrinking at a rate of five feet per hour? Yes. But that is only the beginning. The study in question was presented at the 1979 meeting of the American Astronomical Society by John Eddy and Aram Boornazian. It generated a considerable amount of interest because of the puzzle it presented.

The Eddy and Boornazian results were disputed almost immediately. In the same month as the presentation, another group published a paper in Science that showed results of less than 1/4 the shrinkage rate. In 1980, another paper concluded the rate was about 1/7 what Eddy and Boornazian had found. Another look at the data by a different team of scientists found that the high shrinkage rates "are the results of instrumental and observational defects rather than real changes," and that team determined there was no overall change over the past 250 years, though there was an 80-year cycle of shrinkage and expansion. Similarly, an extensive article in Astrophysics Journal made the case for a cycle of 76 years of shrinking and expansion. Since then, additional papers have been published which verified the cyclical change but failed to verify the original shrinkage result.

So, although this theory was intriguing at first, it was quickly dismissed.

If you need links to the sources of the other projects, I am sure I can provide those.

Very well then. You and and I may discover the secrets of the universe over a Funny website.
One more theory by my side for a younger Earth is
Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238. As uranium decays, the helium produced escapes from the earth's surface and accumulates in the atmosphere. As time passes, the amount of helium in the atmosphere increases. Scientists have estimated the amount of uranium in the earth's crustal rocks. From this they estimate the amount of helium that should be produced, and from these they can calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time. They also know how much helium is currently in the atmosphere.
Helium in the Atmosphere.
If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make -- i.e.: no initial daughter/byproduct (or helium) in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium -- then the earth's atmosphere is at most 1.76 million years old. 16,17 Other estimates say it is much less: or only 175,000 years.

I am sorry to see that you decided to no longer take part in this conversation. It started to get down to hard arguments and you decide to stop.

Well, maybe that in itself is something for you to think about.

would you like that? To argue more with me? To try to prove me wrong at every point? Instead of taking what i say and forming into some logical argument, look stuff up to prove me wrong? I've taking everything you've said and considered it to my argument. But I know you haven't, you read my comment, discarded it, then looked up something to prove me wrong. How can you not admit to wait im saying as a valid reason to not totally agree with what everything Scientists say? How can i trust something with so many flaws in it?

Yes I would like that actually.

I do understand your viewpoint, and I really do take your arguments into consideration.

But so far, your points just didn´t convince me, because of the reasons listed.

Over the years I have seen so much more believable indications for an older universe.

The background radiation, the time it takes for stars and galaxies to form, the fossil records that show evolution over time (you can actually see the bones and many others.

And yes, I do like to discuss these points, as I am very interested in the topic. And I have no problem with you doing the same with my arguments.

And btw, that is how a discussion works, you know? You present arguments, I react to them.

I can continue the argument, but what i would be saying is not my own words.

no. I stopped because i ran out of my knowledge. I could of looked up more fact to help me but, i feel like i should of stopped when i couldn't speak the knowledge i know by heart.

Not too bad. This one was a little harder to crack. This theory goes back to the RATE project.

Here is a link: www.icr.org/rate/

But, again there are some things wrong with it. The major problem with using Helium as a measure of age is that alpha decay always releases a 4Helium nucleus. Uranium is only one of many radioactive elements that decay to a stable element through alpha decay. In the process of decaying to 206Lead, 238Uranium releases 8 4Helium nuclei (Lupton, 2005). 222Radon also decays through alpha decay to 206Lead. While 222Radon is a daughter product in the decay chain from 238Uranium to 206Lead, it is relatively abundant in Earth's crust and is constantly escaping through the crust into the atmosphere. This being the case, it is impossible to attribute all the helium in rock samples to a single decay sequence. The helium found in the rock RATE tested results from many different decay processes, so to attribute it to a single decay process is faulty.

While the RATE project can be commended for trying to use scientific methods for proving a young Earth, there are too many questions regarding its execution and too much ability for a false date to be calculated from the Helium amounts in the rock samples. Excess Helium in rocks may be a genuine mystery, but all possible explanations must be investigated before a true understanding can emerge. The RATE team has jumped the gun by preparing a radical model like accelerated decay, which would have a wide variety of serious consequences that have not been considered.

But the major point is, that the earth-shrinking argument AND this one, basically are arguments AGAINST genisis. They both support the fact that the earth is much, much older than 10.000 years.

And wasn´t that your original statement?

oh look, he realized argueing on the internet about religoin is pointless, unless you intend to troll someone.

wait you looked that up?

Of course I did. And he fled the thread. That always happens with these religous folks. You finally get into a rational argument (mostly after two or three days of back and forth) and they escape the discussion after their first arguments were debunked.

I hate, when that happens.

unless you intend to troll someone.

Not really trying to troll. I am genuinely interested in a real conversation with the guy.

I am open for a lot of things, and I am prepared to be convinced by him.

But I guess that won´t happen.

this has nothing to do with him.

whats wrong wit religion? Nobodys ever convereted to christianity and then go around killing millions of people....

You say nobody's ever converted to Christianity and gone around killing millions of people?

www.middle-ages.org.uk/the-...

You can't deny that the Crusades happened, and they were the best example of Christians going around killing people "in the name of God"

and the crusades started with atrocities committed by the muslims of Jerusalem they killed 3000 people, and that as a lot back in the 1000's.

I will agree that there were massacres and atrocities committed by both Christians and Muslims during the Crusades. The movie Kingdom of Heaven shows this wonderfully, but the fact remains that Christians went around killing millions of people, including innocent women and children, just because they weren't Christians.

Adolf hitler, 15 Million dead

Joseph stalin, 20 million dead

fidel castro, 1 million dead

pol pot, 2 million dead

im just gonna post this for you.

i will also add that athiests have killed more people than every natural, or really any other kind of disaster that has ever occured in the modern world.

You forgot to put these guys on your list of atheists.

Abraham Lincoln

Thomas Jefferson

Benjamin Franklin

George Washington

Karl Marx

Sigmund Freud

Stephen Hawking

Thomas Edison

I will also add that religious people have killed many more people than atheists, and that, statistically, atheist countries are more peaceful than religious countries.

well im sure that all of the great people throughout history were secretly athiests, and that religion is the sole cause of every war and murder that has ever been commited, but carl marx seems anly invented today's socialism, and not much else.

Charles Darwin

Martin Luther

Albert Einstein

Those are the first three names that come to mind when I think of great thinkers who were also religious.

And I didn't say religion was the sole cause of war and murder. I said that it is a common cause for war, historically speaking.

why are you getting worked up?

athiesm caused many wars in this age, including a holocaust.

Adolf hitler, 15 Million dead

Joseph stalin, 20 million dead

fidel castro, 1 million dead

pol pot, 2 million dead

and don't toenail clipping down people if your going to argue with them. notice that your toenail clippings are completely intact.

What´s wrong with religion? Well, to start with, millions of people have died in the name of religion. The most recent addition would be 9/11.

On the other hand, I have no problem at all with christians or muslims or buddhist or whatever. If you are happy with your religion, then that is great! No need to change a thing.

What I DO have a problem with however, are those type of religious people (mostly christians) that shove it down your throat (westboro baptist church comes to mind).

So when people post these little remarks like "I know more about science and I am still a christian" then I like to call them on that and see what happens.

It usually is good fun, and this time didn´t dissapoint either. Sometimes you get really deep and intelligent discussions out of these things

what about all the people athiests have killed?

Well, we can´t change that. There will always be crimes of passion, greed and power.

We just can´t change the nature of human kind.

But we can argue with hardcore christians to get rid of boredom. And that is a good thing.

no man, atheist leaders killed millions. in terms of sheer bodycount, its actually worse than theist leaders.

It is true that atheist leaders have killed millions. And it is a shame, too.

But I think we can establish that the church wasn´t really slacking either, can´t we?

I mean the crusades alone...

an incredible 2 millions souls. hitler killed more than 7 times more than that.

I'm sorry for my spelling mistakes, i was kinda of speed typing :3

seiriously, want quotes? there were like 5 in that one post.

See. right there. you say im trolling, then you go off and troll a guy.

If that is trolling to you, then we both operate on a different definition of the word.

Here is a definition for you: www.urbandictionary.com/def...

As you can see I didn´t get personal, and I didn´t insult people. I tried to engage in an intelligent and rational discussion.

I do not consider that trolling.

This answer to another poster of YOU on the other hand: ""LOL OMG SO TRUE THIS TOTALLY HAPPENED TO ME THE OTHER DAY YOUR SO COOL LOLOLOLOLOLOL OMG 1337 LEET OMG FAPFAPFAPFAPFAP!!!!!!!!111111one"

kids... "

This qualifies as trolling in my book.

So, again. Who is the troll here?

"unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can." - the exact link you JUST sent me to.

"Wow, is that your try at logic?" -nightauditor

and i was just making fun of that kid for pretending hes cool.

Oh, so you were just making FUN of the kid, eh? So that magically makes it NOT trolling, right?

And, yes, if you´re really anal, then I guess you could take that ONE sentence out of a whole rational discussion and call me a troll.

If you feel better then, then I will allow that.

Who give´s a real shit anyways?

there are other sentances.... if you wanna see them, call my bluff.

yeah, i guess i was trolling the kid. but he was acting like a dumbass. thats how 90% of trollings happen.

I´m calling it. Name them.

And it´s nice to see that you can admit failure. That´s a start.

hmmm.... okayyy.....

"you should be able to discuss topics by using facts. So far it doesn´t really seem that way, you know? " -you

"the earth developed itself over millions of years and was not magically created by a higher deity." -you

"And that is why I cannot take you seriously. It is like talking to a stubborn child. "

youve been acting like a little bitch all arguement.


"

"you should be able to discuss topics by using facts. So far it doesn´t really seem that way, you know? " -you NOT trolling, calmly discussing.

"the earth developed itself over millions of years and was not magically created by a higher deity." -you NOT trolling, calmly discussing.

"And that is why I cannot take you seriously. It is like talking to a stubborn child. "

NOT trolling, calmly discussing.

There is no insult, these are not cynical or sarcastic remarks.

Anything else?

that guy just put up an arguement you know. you should read it. you did demand it after all.

OP delivers.

just replied...

i say your trolling.

:p
i don't think i'm cool

i could of put that better but oh well.

how about we all just drink a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up and believe in what we believe F.Y.I. I believe in a flying spaghetti monster try to disprove that!!

*sigh* the old "can´t disprove a negative" trick, yes?

Ok, believe what you want, I don´t care. But if people say " I know more about science, and still believe in christianity" then I think I have the right to respond to that and call their bluff.

Don´t you think so?

Anyway, as I said in the beginning, believe whatever works for you. If you´d been born in on a different continent, you´d most likely follow a different god. So I don´t really care.

If you are happy then don´t change a thing. But don´t expect people to leave those BS lines uncommented. This is the internet after all...

someone didn't drink there cup of shut the fuck up and was to busy ranting to see the point in my post, Fail.

I was going to post a pic of a fork, but it seems my shitty dell hails his noodly appendage as well...

you know, theres an article on encyclopedia dramatica making fun of athiests for their habits, and your doing all of the things that article entails. It leads me to belive that your some butthurt kid.

just drink your cup of shut the fuck up believe what you believe and let others believe in what they believe, quit trying to fight an internet war your ruining the internet!!! and more importantly funnyjunk

I am 30 and bored at work. Make of that what you will, I guess.

And of course all the atheist behave the same. All the christians like you, orun and sprainedanckle behave the same as well.

You cannot directly answer questions (i. e. why does sprainedanckle favor genesis over evolution? name three arguments, please? Maybe one?).

And that is why I cannot take you seriously. It is like talking to a stubborn child.

im not argueing with you im bitching at [url deleted] calling you a troll, when have i ever said anything about religion?

dude there is one huge hole in your argument, im Atheist, that was directed at everyone, im just trying to say people need to just shut the fuck up and let people believe in what makes them happy

sorry, wrong guy.

im lost i dont know anyone around me, there all yelling at me.. and.. and, i just want to go home!!!! hahah but in all seriousness everyone should just convert to The Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster

im not argueing with you im bitching at [url deleted] calling you a troll, when have i ever said anything about religion?

the fact that you just replied to him show how you are an idiot.
Don't even reply to me because im not 1.going to read it. 2. going to reply