PlanetSide Universe - View Single Post - Science vs Religion
View Single Post
Old 2012-04-06, 03:08 AM   [Ignore Me] #238
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Science vs Religion


Originally Posted by Traak View Post
Actually, that is patently false. These vaunted open-minded atheists that you claim to believe exist attack others with character assaults, gossip, and libel, slinging around words like "bigot" at anyone who doesn't bow down to their beliefs, especially when it comes to homosexuality.
Traak, you simply are a bigot because you fit the definition. You may not consider yourself a bigot, but every other person here, including most the other christians that responded to you, does. And yes, your stance of homosexuality is bigoted.

Think about it. That has nothing to do with being an atheist, it's everything to do with you having prejudices and being judgmental about a group of people based on them being "sinful" by a definition you got out of a stone age book. Don't judge lest you be judged yourself, remember? We're judging you as you are others and you simply don't like the outcome, like we don't like your judgment.

You've consistently used character assaults yourself in every debate I've seen you in. In fact, this post again is a character assault on - as usual - a large generalised group, this time atheists. When we "attack" though, it's because we provide an argumentation to why something is silly.


Frankly, that's perfectly fine if you have a solid reason to back up why something is silly and frankly, it's simply this easy to argue against "faith" based religion with no actual experiments or other solid evidence to back up any claims, while these claims are of epic proportions and typically should have left a lot of evidence in the ground and space. Yet it does not, not even remotely.

Hence you should just prepare to lose every fact based debate and feel like you're being attacked. If you are unprepared or unwilling to put your faith to scrutiny, don't post. You can put my assertions to scrutiny as much as you'd like, problem is, you have no fact based argumentation, but are 100% reliable on hearsay (Bible) from a single source, which contains lots and lots of blatant errors, plot holes, omissions, inconsistencies and worst of all, is completely based on assumptions from a stone age - iron age people with a severe lack of understanding of even basic natural phenomena.

If we're just thinking in untested assertions, you can win any debate you want, but it won't ever convince anyone who has not already chosen to be religious so the circle argumentation "makes sense".


In the same sense that I do not believe Hercules to have placed the rock of Gibraltar because of geology and simply because humans cannot have that much strength, I don't believe Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine. Since I can show that no man can walk on water and that wine consists of completely different molecular make up and you claim someone can the burden of proof lies with you, it's you who has to prove your claim. If you can't and even refuse to, who are you to deny us the right to call you silly or self-delusional, much like you would call the stories about Hercules a fairy tale?

Last edited by Figment; 2012-04-06 at 03:10 AM.
Figment is offline