torpex2002

What, if anything, creates divisions resulting in more death and destruction, than theistic religions?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27037181

And what are your opinions on this event?

http://debatelive.org/

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this claim, that believing or not believing in a god is a choice.

Do these people perhaps not realise that rational people cannot merely "choose" what they believe?

I for one, appreciate that a beliefs desirability is no measure of its validity.

Surely a person who can simply choose what they believe is real, is capable of all kinds of self delusion?

You can throw in all manner of other descriptions, apatheism, deism, etc, you can say you don't KNOW for sure, but in terms of BELIEF in a personal god being, you either do believe or you don't, making you either a theist or an atheist.

Or is this a false dichotomy?

I see people are claiming to be neither, is it possible to both believe and not believe in a god being at the same time, as they can only be implying?

You do believe in one = theist

You don't believe in one = atheist

Or are they perhaps confusing not knowing ( agnostic) with not believing (atheist) and think that they aren't atheists when they are?

It's a common misconception, I just want to see how common.

Surely it's almost the exact opposite?

Many gods vs simply naming the universe itself "god."

... that DNA and its coded instructions came about through undirected chance events"

According to a very recent answer.

Personally I've never ever heard any biologist or credible scientist say anything so ridiculous, although I've seen many an evolution denier try to claim that they do.

Has anyone else seen a biologist say that, or know one that "feels" that?

If you have, could you provide a link to a quote or video which verifies it?

Then, we'll see which ones stand up to some scrutiny, ie, don't rely on dishonest quote mining out of context, etc.

I'd like to know how many is "many," if any.

And....

Go.

Presumably completely ignorant of the fact that GPS satellites are programmed on the premise that time is as real and relative a dimension as space, because if they weren't, they'd become inaccurate by several MILES per day?

Presumably completely ignorant of the fact that GPS satellites are programmed on the premise that time is as real and relative a dimension as space, because if they weren't, they'd become inaccurate by several MILES per day?

Presumably completely ignorant of the fact that GPS satellites are programmed on the premise that time is as real and relative a dimension as space, because if they weren't, they'd become inaccurate by several MILES per day?

Firstly, it's pathetic to silence such folk, secondly, it's actually best to give them enough rope to hang themselves with, don't you think?

Should anyone linking folk to this be publicly laughed at?

http://techlinkonline.net/ps100/2011/08/evolution-...

Is this sound logic?

Written as an answer in this section recently.

Do you need to prove something before it can be disproven?

Can you only disprove something after it was previously proven?

Surely it does not follow that something has to be proven true before it proves false?

Last I checked, atheist = non believer in any god, but since not every religion involves any kind of personal god, why do people think that atheist is synonymous with irreligious?

Lying about a dead baby who died 6 YEARS ago to get likes and comments on facebook?

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=53416154329...

Here's his REAL story.

http://www.iansvoice.org/

Then why are there still apes?

Now the real question, who feels fully comfortable living in a world where there are still people dumb enough to genuinely think this statement is some kind of falsification of evolution and common ancestry?

I mean, seriously, is there a greater evolution deniers faceplant than this apparently still purveyed strawman?

Cos even with plenty of strong competition, this one has it in the bag as far as I can see.

And if so, what leads you to this conclusion? Why do you believe it?

I just saw someone say it, so there's definitely some.

Being atheist myself, I'm unaware of how one can think that our sense of good and bad is the same for all, given how much it varies from person to person, from place to place and over time, so please, enlighten me.

Clearly levels of ignorance, numbers of fallacies and lies, are no way of distinguishing the real evolution deniers from those making parodies of them, does anyone have any tested means by which you can spot the difference?

Personally I respond to all anyway, because even if the original question was clearly a joke due to its ridiculousness, you can be pretty sure that some genuinely ignorant person will regurgitate it elsewhere and/or at a later date, blissfully unaware of how much they've embarrased themselves.

But that's just me.

What is your tactic?