Disbelieve it or not, ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion

February 16, 2016
Disbelieve it or not, ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion
The Chariot of Zeus, from “Stories from the Greek Tragedians” by Alfred Church. The study suggests that not all Greeks recognised the gods, and that atheism was fairly acceptable in ancient polytheistic societies. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

People in the ancient world did not always believe in the gods, a new study suggests – casting doubt on the idea that religious belief is a "default setting" for humans.

Despite being written out of large parts of history, atheists thrived in the polytheistic societies of the – raising considerable doubts about whether humans really are "wired" for religion – a new study suggests.

The claim is the central proposition of a new book by Tim Whitmarsh, Professor of Greek Culture and a Fellow of St John's College, University of Cambridge. In it, he suggests that atheism – which is typically seen as a modern phenomenon – was not just common in ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome, but probably flourished more in those societies than in most civilisations since.

As a result, the study challenges two assumptions that prop up current debates between atheists and believers: Firstly, the idea that atheism is a modern point of view, and second, the idea of "religious universalism" – that humans are naturally predisposed, or "wired", to believe in gods.

The book, titled Battling The Gods, is being launched in Cambridge on Tuesday (February 16).

"We tend to see atheism as an idea that has only recently emerged in secular Western societies," Whitmarsh said. "The rhetoric used to describe it is hyper-modern. In fact, early societies were far more capable than many since of containing atheism within the spectrum of what they considered normal."

"Rather than making judgements based on scientific reason, these early atheists were making what seem to be universal objections about the paradoxical nature of religion – the fact that it asks you to accept things that aren't intuitively there in your world. The fact that this was happening thousands of years ago suggests that forms of disbelief can exist in all cultures, and probably always have."

The book argues that disbelief is actually "as old as the hills". Early examples, such as the atheistic writings of Xenophanes of Colophon (c.570-475 BCE) are contemporary with Second Temple-era Judaism, and significantly predate Christianity and Islam. Even Plato, writing in the 4th Century BCE, said that contemporary non-believers were "not the first to have had this view about the gods."

Because atheism's ancient history has largely gone unwritten, however, Whitmarsh suggests that it is also absent from both sides of the current monotheist/atheist debate. While atheists depict religion as something from an earlier, more primitive stage of human development, the idea of religious universalism is also built partly on the notion that early societies were religious by nature because to believe in god is an inherent, "default setting" for humans.

Neither perspective is true, Whitmarsh suggests: "Believers talk about atheism as if it's a pathology of a particularly odd phase of modern Western culture that will pass, but if you ask someone to think hard, clearly people also thought this way in antiquity."

His book surveys one thousand years of ancient history to prove the point, teasing out the various forms of disbelief expressed by philosophical movements, writers and public figures.

These were made possible in particular by the fundamental diversity of polytheistic Greek societies. Between 650 and 323 BCE, Greece had an estimated 1,200 separate city states, each with its own customs, traditions and governance. Religion expressed this variety, as a matter of private cults, village rituals and city festivals dedicated to numerous divine entities.

This meant that there was no such thing as religious orthodoxy. The closest the Greeks got to a unifying sacred text were Homer's epics, which offered no coherent moral vision of the gods, and indeed often portrayed them as immoral. Similarly, there was no specialised clergy telling people how to live: "The idea of a priest telling you what to do was alien to the Greek world," Whitmarsh said.

As a result, while some people viewed atheism as mistaken, it was rarely seen as morally wrong. In fact, it was usually tolerated as one of a number of viewpoints that people could adopt on the subject of the gods. Only occasionally was it actively legislated against, such as in Athens during the 5th Century BCE, when Socrates was executed for "not recognising the gods of the city."

While atheism came in various shapes and sizes, Whitmarsh also argues that there were strong continuities across the generations. Ancient atheists struggled with fundamentals that many people still question today – such as how to deal with the problem of evil, and how to explain aspects of religion which seem implausible.

These themes extend from the work of early thinkers – like Anaximander and Anaximenes, who tried to explain why phenomena such as thunder and earthquakes actually had nothing to do with the gods – through to famous writers like Euripides, whose plays openly criticised divine causality. Perhaps the most famous group of atheists in the ancient world, the Epicureans, argued that there was no such thing as predestination and rejected the idea that the gods had any control over human life.

The age of ancient atheism ended, Whitmarsh suggests, because the polytheistic societies that generally tolerated it were replaced by monotheistic imperial forces that demanded an acceptance of one, "true" God. Rome's adoption of Christianity in the 4th Century CE was, he says, "seismic", because it used religious absolutism to hold the Empire together.

Most of the later Roman Empire's ideological energy was expended fighting supposedly heretical beliefs – often other forms of Christianity. In a decree of 380, Emperor Theodosius I even drew a distinction between Catholics, and everyone else – whom he classed as dementes vesanosque ("demented lunatics"). Such rulings left no room for disbelief.

Whitmarsh stresses that his study is not designed to prove, or disprove, the truth of atheism itself. On the book's first page, however, he adds: "I do, however, have a strong conviction – that has hardened in the course of researching and writing this book – that cultural and religious pluralism, and free debate, are indispensable to the good life."

Explore further: Is there an underlying sympathy between new atheism and protestant fundamentalism?

Related Stories

Researchers study how humor matters in social movements

August 18, 2014

For social movements whose members believe they are maligned and misunderstood in the broader culture, marginalization is no laughing matter. But as the New Atheist Movement demonstrates, humor can be an effective tool to ...

Recommended for you

Amber specimen offers rare glimpse of feathered dinosaur tail

December 8, 2016

Researchers have discovered a dinosaur tail complete with its feathers trapped in a piece of amber. The finding reported in Current Biology on December 8 helps to fill in details of the dinosaurs' feather structure and evolution, ...

88 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

StupidAtheistDotCom
5 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2016
It can't be TOO surprising that "No there isn't" is as old as "Yes there IS"...
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2016
Not surprising, since it is consistent with how basic moral reactions are the same in people independent of religiosity. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

On the other hand religiosity correlates with dysfunctionality of societies, which means its extent is dependent on degree of absolutism/despotism among other factors.

An ironic note is to see a reference to Second Temple-era Judaism of > 2200 years ago, since the Dead Sea scroll shows - as Josephus confirms 200 years later - it is a sect among others that arose later. And we know that Herod built temples for all these many extant religions, in the case of the 'Second' temple archaeologists found it was built on bedrock and not preceding buildings. Neither the presumed monotheism - at the time - nor its other dressings of myth existed historically, which makes it an odd reference for a book that tries to clarify what was real.
baudrunner
4.8 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2016
In his book "Wanderings: History of the Jews", Chaim Potok writes that a majority of the Jewish people do not have religion - they are secular - and of the rest he states that the majority of those who do have religion do not believe in a spiritual god. That, in all likelihood, is the way that it has been throughout history. http://www.amazon...49215822

Jewish is a national identity, not a religion.
alethinos95
4.3 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2016
Rather dull. There's no 'news' here. I was hearing this 30 + years ago as an undergrad. In teaching History of Western Religions and Mythology I take my students through this. Did the author of the article have some point to make?
Skepticus
3 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2016
I am always amused at people who naturally assume that the ancients were backwards, uncivilized, narrow minded and idiots. In short, they are pissing and shitting on their own forefathers and mothers' graves! ha ha!
katesisco
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2016
Yes, were are recycled opinions. Same old, same old. If I was a suspicious sort, I might think the purpose of these questions is to gauge how best to target the next article about the same thing to pursue the aim of bolstering the elite/capitalistic goal of entrenching religion into the suffering populace.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2016
Atheism is natural. As a little kid, I was amazed at the folk who would "believe" what was obviously a trick to fool them, using an unprovable lie.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2016
@ glam-Skippy. How you are Cher? Oh yeah, I am fine and dandy.

Sorry podna but you sort of set your self up with this one,,,,,,,

I was amazed at the folk who would "believe" what was obviously a trick to fool them, using an unprovable lie.


Was you so amazed that you decided it would be a fun way to spend your retirement?

gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2016
Why do we have religious believers? Do they not see the obvious transparency of superstition? What is the basis of this pathetic need?

Even more important, why do we STILL have those who rely on superstition from the Age of Ignorance for "guidance"? Is life so terrifying that we need to lie to ourselves to get through the day?
Estevan57
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2016
There's the windup, ... and the pitch, ... and Ira hits it out of the park! Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2016
@ glam-Skippy. How you are again Cher? I am still good, thanks for asking.

Can I ask you a question and get a straight answer. I will even promise not to down the vote the answer even if you say someting really really snarky or snide, as long as you answer the question while you are doing it.

How about it Cher, can you do that for your ol podna Ira-Skippy?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2016
I want to know why some folk choose to "believe" in religion. If you do, tell us why. I do not think any of us have Absolute Truth, which is what is implied here, like Scientology promises their Thetans they will be able to have cause over time and matter.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2016
I want to know why some folk choose to "believe" in religion. If you do, tell us why. I do not think any of us have Absolute Truth, which is what is implied here, like Scientology promises their Thetans they will be able to have cause over time and matter.


I'll take that as a "No I am not going to answer a question for you. You should know by now I don't do that, you silly goober".
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2016
Okay, I will play into the game. Ask away, but I have to leave soon.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2016
@ glam-Skippy. Okayeei, thanks in advance for that.

Here's what it is, you write pretty much the same postums, with the same arguementitive tone and snidiness. From the beginning they are all the same. For the first two months a lot peoples seemed to think they were cute and pumped you up by giving the high votes, then the next two months you just repeated everyting that you wrote the first two months. Most of them quit voting for you. Then the next two months you repeated the exact same things again. Then started over and repeated the exact same things again. See where we are going? Yeppers, you are still repeating the same silly slogans that you started with.

The question is: Why are you here? What do you accomplish with your repeating the same things over and over and over? You used to spread all these gems all over the interweb and at news sites and well just every where. Why you don't do that anymore, is physorg the only place that let's you do it?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2016
Rather dull. There's no 'news' here. I was hearing this 30 + years ago as an undergrad. In teaching History of Western Religions and Mythology I take my students through this. Did the author of the article have some point to make?

Providing PR for an upcoming book?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2016
I want to know why some folk choose to "believe" in religion. If you do, tell us why.

Many were taught it so strongly that they have no other option. Why do you seem so angry and smug in your disbelief about it?
I do not think any of us have Absolute Truth, which is what is implied here,

Silly rabbit - that IS the absolute truth. That there ISN'T one...
... like Scientology promises their Thetans they will be able to have cause over time and matter.

I make use of my time by manipulating silverware into something completely different than what it was intended for.
Dang, I'm a Scientologist and didn't even know it!
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2016
" Why are you here? "
-----------------------------------

Ira, this is not your forum. I came here from other fora populated by folk like me with experience and education who wanted to share and learn from similar folk. I thought I would find many of them here. Instead, I find it has degenerated into some kind of space dominated by a few trolls, who use it for their personal sport, to and abuse others. Those kind always hide behind pseudonyms, and some sport awards they did not earn.

Look at your comments. Few are technical, and this is a science site. If you want to play your "Uncle Ira Show", as you called it, please do it on Twitter or some other adolescent site. Those old clever remarks of yours will be treasured by generations to come, . . but not on this site, . . please.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2016
"Why do you seem so angry and smug in your disbelief about it?"
-----------------------------------

Why? Look around and tell me religion has done good things for the world, and is doing them right now. Burning people alive, chopping off heads, mass criminality and barbarism in the name of Absolute Good. And that was just the Jews and the Christians. Now it is the turn of the Muslims.

If we survive the self-righteously-violent Abrahamic religions it really will be a miracle.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2016
I want to know why some folk choose to "believe" in religion
@G/benni-kam
IMHO- because it gives them the ability to present not only an answer but also the means to alleviate responsibility

in humans there is a need to find answers and fill in the blanks... it is a rare person who can retrain themselves to be OK with not knowing something (the whole basis of Science is seeking answers, and if you aint curious, you aint a scientist)

.

Many were taught it so strongly that they have no other option
@WHYDE
absolutely!
this is one of the logical failures as well... if you want to teach critical thinking you can't also then require someone to suspend critical thinking for a belief that has NO evidence

perhaps this is just one reason for the society we've created where critical thinking appears to be lacking in most?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2016
@g/beni-kam
i downrated your post b/c this
Look at your comments. Few are technical, and this is a science site
of course, the same can be said about your own posts as they are predominantly your own opinion mixed with either mistaken tech data or intentionally wrong data (like about gun stat's which are easily researched and found in various places)

as for this
... your "Uncle Ira Show"...
sometimes the best way to insert critical thinking skills is to question something
ALSO- humour is important
more importantly, research and validation of a claim

given that you usually provide NONE of that, then what other recourse should be used to indicate the illogical/wrong/stupid information in your posts?

you don't seem to mind being proven stupid, you're immune to constructive criticism or feedback, nor do you comprehend actual data over your opinions... so why not skip past the inevitable argument and simply point out your logical inconsistencies with humour?

Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2016
Ira, this is not your forum. I came here from other fora populated by folk like me with experience and education who wanted to share and learn from similar folk. I thought I would find many of them here. Instead, I find it has degenerated into some kind of space dominated by a few trolls, who use it for their personal sport, to and abuse others. Those kind always hide behind pseudonyms, and some sport awards they did not earn.

Look at your comments. Few are technical, and this is a science site. If you want to play your "Uncle Ira Show", as you called it, please do it on Twitter or some other adolescent site. Those old clever remarks of yours will be treasured by generations to come, . . but not on this site, . . please.


You did not answer the question, butI already knew you would not. My site? I am not the one who is always telling peoples to go to the tweeter place. But your comments are all like the tweeters there, hmmm, makes one think, eh?
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2016

I answered the question in the first sentence, but little Uncle Ego was too angry and MAD to see it.

Oh, boy, the Ira-otto is angry that others are in its own forum, where it makes rude and irrelevant comments. Gosh, we are REALLY REALLY sorry to take away your pathetic game here, but we only want to share it, and introduce experience instead of just being wiki-warriors.

You folk not in the business being posted are just blabbering what you read from someone you do not even know. Much of the time, you do not read the entire reference, which is hilarious. You are here for psychological games. I am not.

Now, this is about religion, and how some folk are fooled, suckered, into ridiculous thoughts of magic and miracles and living forever in a make-believe place.

Got some experience?
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2016
I answered the question in the first sentence, but little Uncle Ego was too angry and MAD to see it.
You think I am angry and MAD? No wonder you would not be a very good engineer or scientist, you are as dumb as a cypress stump if you think that.

Oh, boy, the Ira-otto is angry that others are in its own forum, where it makes rude and irrelevant comments.
glam-Skippy, you sure are good at seeing things that don't exist.

but we only want to share it, and introduce experience instead of just being wiki-warriors.
But most of the time what you share is wrong, foolish, or weird. You get the most basic stuffs wrong all the time. That's how we know you were never more than a technician supervised by the engineer. No way you could have been a real engineer. Not with the blunders you blurt all time.

Got some experience?
Sure I do. And you will notice I usually make the blunders that you make.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2016
Uncle Ego never forgave me for being real, and now follows me around to punish me, . . for being real. I am sorry I really did all those things, Uncle Ego, but that is how life is for some folk.

Yeah, you look us up, look for things to criticize, instead of technical comments on a science site. Please take your Uncle Ego Game elsewhere. You admitted it yourself.

Now please go away .
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2016
Got some experience?

Enough to know the difference between reactive power, true power and apparent power, which you did not until you got schooled on it here.

Enough to know that terahertz radiation is infrared and visible light, which you did not until you got schooled on here.

Enough to know not to mix up the formula for force and kinetic energy.

Enough to know that differential equations are not quadratic equations like you thought in FIVE different postums to Bennie-Skippy.

Enough to answer one of your "got cha" questions you ask and you were too stupid to realize I answered, correct and plainly. (Hint, "Fourier Transforms and Fourier Series".)

Enough to know that Btu's and kWh are measure of the exact same thing. When you said you couldn't convert between them. That was one of your best ones, so good you repeated him a couple times while claiming to be the Senior Engineer.

And that is just a few that I schooled you on. There hundreds of others.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2016
Uncle Ego, please take your fixation on me somewhere else. Go write to your local newspaper. Get it out of your little craw. Shall I go over all the claims you made against me and my experience which I have already proven? You still have not heard of all the things, but will, eventually, if you keep on.

I had no idea I had lived such an interesting life, until I started posting here, and ran into the kind of folk who assumed we were lying kids using phony names. Making me prove it was the best thing that has happened to me in a long time. I can hardly wait for more chances for revelations.

Meanwhile, you keep on with the semantic games, . . . your kind has to have something to do.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2016
Uncle Ego, please take your fixation on me somewhere else.
Hooyeei, well how about that? Ol glam-Skippy has the sense of humor and try to make the joke. I am uncle ego, to the guy who writes more about him self than he does anything else. And I got the fixation on glam-Skippy when he writes pages and pages every day about glam-Skippy and I only write about 10 postums in one day, most days less than 10 and a lot of days nothing at all.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. If you going to make a joke Cher you need to try to set him up with a punch line at the end, otherwise they just sound like a silly blurt or foolish blah.
KelDude
5 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2016
Religion should only be explored by an adult looking at "what is this or that religion all about?". Children should NEVER be given religious training of any kind. That's just brain washing them with no chance of independant thought when they reach adulthood. Leave the children out of religion, let them grow up as independant thinkers to make up their own minds when adults. Religions are simply "cults" hanging around from bygone days, nothing more. Let's not perpetuate them by training innocent children into them.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2016
Among other things, how does thinking real hard prove to you that people necessarily denied the presence of God in the past?
Also, if they repudiated accepting that God is present because they saw no proof, and so considered themselves more philosophically oriented than the others, the fact they couldn't prove God was not present had to be a shock to them. If they were in any way philosophically honorable. But honor is the last thing to matter to atheists. Consider that they embrace the logical depravity of Hitchens, "If someone does not provide proof of what they say, that is absolute proof it is false". In fact, it's not the principle as much as it is the nature of the atheists. Leaders of movements are canny swindlers looking to hook the stupid, atheist followers are arrested development freaks and misfits.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2016
Leave the children out of religion, let them grow up as independant thinkers to make up their own minds when adults
@KelDude
agreed!
i mean... we want our children to learn critical thinking skills... but then undermine that by removing those skills with religious beliefs

and we wonder why the current failures in the STEM fields are so profound?

.

honor is the last thing to matter to atheists
@julainP
this is both transference as well as a false claim
first of all, the term is subjective and usually based upon a cultural (or other) set of beliefs: Honour to a US, Brit, Ger or other EURO citizen is not the same type of Honour as a Japanese citizen

but more importantly, no single anything has the market cornered on dishonour

if anything you could say religious acolytes are actually promoters of dishonesty and dishonour as they intentionally ignore their own teachings
USUALLY simply for the sake of self-justification of personal prejudice or hatred or gain
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2016
Before trying to pretend they can make a point, Captain Stumpy may want to learn to spell.
All cultures include things like fairness, responsibility and truthfulness in their definitions of "honor". The atheist lie that "all wars were caused by religion" only demonstrates how important deceit is to their "principles". Likewise, their devotion to Hitchens' perverted assertion that failing to provide evidence of a claim automatically disproves it.
And Captain Stumpy can engage as much as they want in the nebulous tossing of accusations at individuals involved in religions, which they do here, but the absolute proof that lies are a fundamental part of atheism is demonstrable.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2016
Religions are philosophical systems in that they do begun with precepts and work outward. Atheism is not a system, it is merely the repudiation of religion. No atheist ever went that way from absolute certainty, but, rather, out of a depraved need to spit in the face of those in religions.
Another demonstration of the deceit of atheists. Captain Stumpy talks about religions necessarily having prevented all learning. Copernicus was deeply religious. Isac Newton, when not developing calculus or the basics of mechanics, spent time working to validate passages from the Bible. Mendel, who proposed genetic theory, was a monk. Atheists are all liars.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2016
@jp
Point is, there is no god. The belief in god or gods is not natural, but a rationalisation from a distant past. It is also an instrument to exert power. The system of religion offers impunity to useless people who acquire wealth and power by selling false hope, spreading fear and ignorance, using social exclusion and violence. Your attempts to demonise atheists are just one more example of the tactics used.
animah
5 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2016
a depraved need to spit

Whoa julianpenrod, what's with the hate and the wild generalisations? How about you try building bridges not walls?
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2016
Despite what Phys1 and animah claim, I did not engage in "wild generalisations [sic]". All atheists are liars. I demonstrated that.
Phys1 makes a bald and definitive statement about the presence of God. Will Phys1 provide the proof that leads them to make that statement? Will they back their statement up? End all the questions, provide the proof if you have it. Or else Phys1 will admit themselves a liar for having made that statement as if it were demonstrable. And, where did Christ, in speaking of God, try to gain control over anyone?
And where is animah's rejoinders to the ilk of Phys1 and Captain Stumpy for their displayed hate and generalizations about those who followed religion? Hypocrisy is a sure sign of cravenness and malignance.
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2016
I believe studies have indicated that a capacity for self delusion gives humans a survival advantage. This would in turn indicate that the default condition for humans is a tendency toward self delusion. Delusion takes many forms - religious belief systems are only one direction delusion can take. Those who do not require the delusion that religious belief supplies really shouldn't go about feeling too superior - they are humans too, and therefore are quite likely to be trapped in SOME form of self delusion, although perhaps at some lesser level?........
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2016
By the way, these forums are much saner with Mr. Penrod on the ignore list........ as I almost indicated above, most of us are likely to be somewhat delusional, but some of course far more delusional than others.......
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2016
Stumpy may want to learn to spell
@juli-P
1- http://dictionary...e/honour

2- next time you should actually use a search engine before proclaiming a spelling error as you have just made yourself look like a hypocritical idiot on top of being a fanatical religious acolyte
Captain Stumpy talks about religions necessarily having prevented all learning
actually i said it prevents critical thinking, which is the basis for STEM fields
if ya gonna make accusations, at least get it right, eh juli? (PS- NOT an atheist)

Also note: there is NO barrier that states that having a religion will interfere with science... AS LONG AS you intentionally keep it separate from the science
you don't see "god" listed as a mathematical result for Newton's calculus, do you?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2016
@juli continued
All atheists are liars
really? as opposed to the stellar morality in religion?

lets look at ANY religion and then the definition of LIAR, shall we?

a religion is a series of codified rules, normally surrounding a faith (which is a belief in something WITHOUT evidence)

now, considering there is NO evidence proving said faith exists, then building a "rule book" of how to be a better acolyte and "believe in [name faith here]" is the same as a delusion or a lie...

So, it can't be proven or disproven, therefore it cannot be justified as real... so promoting [said religion] is intentionally pushing "an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood"

religion also can be construed as "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth"

now, lets look at the definition of a lie
LIE: http://dictionary.../lie?s=t

Hmmmm.....
sound familiar?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2016
@juli
And where is animah's rejoinders to...for their displayed hate and generalizations about those who followed religion?
hate like calling all of you Liars? LMFAO

actually, i don't hate people who have a faith... i hate those who, like yourself, seem to think that promotion of a religion (which is the codified rules that a person chooses to subjectively believe in surrounding a faith), is somehow equivalent to a provable scientific argument

when a person decides that the religion must be accurate over and above the evidence that refutes it, it becomes nothing more than a delusion and means to control others

as for your "christ" comments.... since you will not actually read your own book, then obviously you will simply ignore argument FROM your own book- MAT 10:34-35, LUK 12:51

he came to divide, therefore he asks you to choose: ergo it is TO GAIN CONTROL, you moron
for if you do NOT follow, you can't enter into heaven
or did you miss that?
THAT'S CONTROL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2016
I believe studies have indicated that a capacity for self delusion gives humans a survival advantage
@ZZzzz
i think you are correct

without the delusional belief that we are superior or able beyond our typical abilities then there would not be a drive to attempt that which has never been done.

IMHO you can see evidence supporting this in the person who successfully fights off a Griz attack, or who builds the next impossible technology (like the airplane or deep-ocean submarine)

i wonder if delusion as a survival advantage isn't actually emergent??

julianpenrod
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2016
Captain Stumpy tries to make it look like I don't know how to spell. My first name in my username, as is obvious, is spelled "julian", not "julain". Captain Stumpy sees it and still can't spell it. And then tries to make it look like I can't spell the name I use.
As is so often the case for liars, Captain Stumpy tries to "disprove" my statement by insisting it is not a word for word recitation of what Captain Stumpy said. Captain Stumpy meant all learning, whether they admit it or not. And, despite their lie, having religion did not stop development. Consider, atheists like to depict those with religion as forcing society to accept it through out history. Then most if not all development came from those who had religion.
And calling a liar a liar is not hate, it's the truth. And I proved that atheists are liars.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2016
And, if Jesus wanted to control, then why didn't he run away when the Romans wanted Him? Those who want to control others don't let themselves be taken.
Another demonstration of the cravenness of atheists, Captain Stumpy, in their arrested development manner, replying to my proving all atheists are liars by pointing to someone else and blaming them. Arrested development freaks so often try to divert attention from their faults by pointing to someone else. If atheists aren't all liars, prove it.
Captain Stumpy talks about "evidence refuting" that God is present. What evidence refutes that God is present, created all and runs all?
And, note, among other things, neither Phys1 nor animah stood by their own words, a behavior so often seen in liars.
IronhorseA
5 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2016
"Only occasionally was it actively legislated against, such as in Athens during the 5th Century BCE, when Socrates was executed for "not recognising the gods of the city."

Technically he was accused of heresy for saying that the god's were 'kind', when every Greek of the time knew them to be little better than children with self control issues.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
The fact religious folk torture and punish non-believers is they are actually insecure in their own beliefs.

And the fact they do it is proof of character.
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
And, if Jesus wanted to control, then why didn't he run away when the Romans wanted Him? Those who want to control others don't let themselves be taken.
Another demonstration of the cravenness of atheists, Captain Stumpy, in their arrested development manner, replying to my proving all atheists are liars by pointing to someone else and blaming them. Arrested development freaks so often try to divert attention from their faults by pointing to someone else. If atheists aren't all liars, prove it.
Captain Stumpy talks about "evidence refuting" that God is present. What evidence refutes that God is present, created all and runs all?
And, note, among other things, neither Phys1 nor animah stood by their own words, a behavior so often seen in liars.


You know its impossible to prove a statement like "if atheists aren't all liars, prove it."
You want control? Yahweh is the ultimate controller. Obey me or live in hell forever. And define g-o-d objectively.
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2016
Before trying to pretend they can make a point, Captain Stumpy may want to learn to spell.
All cultures include things like fairness, responsibility and truthfulness in their definitions of "honor". The atheist lie that "all wars were caused by religion" only demonstrates how important deceit is to their "principles". Likewise, their devotion to Hitchens' perverted assertion that failing to provide evidence of a claim automatically disproves it.
And Captain Stumpy can engage as much as they want in the nebulous tossing of accusations at individuals involved in religions, which they do here, but the absolute proof that lies are a fundamental part of atheism is demonstrable.


Atheists in general have not said all wars are a caused by religion. You can find two or three who may have said it. And Hitchens, who was well versed in logic, knew that failing to prove a statement was not disproof of it. I've read many his columns and books and never came across that.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
" but the absolute proof that lies are a fundamental part of atheism is demonstrable. "
-------------------------------------
That is just plain silly. Atheism is not something, it is the absence of emotionality, the result of reason overcoming fear.

The lack of a mental set based on emotion is not a problem in itself.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2016
The disproof of all atheists being liars is demonstrating that, at least in the doggerel that promotes their movement, they use nothing but the truth. To declare that God is necessarily not present, and to indicate that they work by proof is a lie, since they themselves say they can't prove God is not present! So they declare as proven what they admit they cannot prove! That is a lie.
Hitchen's debased tenet, voiced in the popular way, is, "That which is proposed without proof can be dismissed without proof". That is equivalent to saying if evidence is not presented, of a statement, that automatically disproves it. You're in a forest and you have no photographs of bears in the forest, so that automatically means there cannot be any bears in the forest? If Ensign Flandry can claim to have gone through Hitchens' books and not found that, Ensign Flandry is lying or unable to see that the two statements are equivalent.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2016
If you told someone to eat good meals on a regular basis, would that be control? Is it control to say not to rob someone or you will be punished? What kind of garbage would need to be threatened to keep them from mistreating another? What kind of garbage is EnsignFlandry to say that ordering people to treat each other well is self serving control?
Quite a number of atheists have said that religion caused all the wars in history. And all the rest of the atheists refused to point out that that was a lie. That makes them partners in the deceit. All atheists are liars.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
gkam describes atheism as "the absence of emotionality". But emotions also include caring, compassion, pity, sympathy. I've said repeatedly that atheists are arrested development freaks who don't know how to have a normal, healthy relationship with anyone else. When people are decent, they don't do it from fear of God, or else they would say openly how they avoided a thunderbolt. When people are decent, they say they have a warm feeling, not a sense of fear! But atheists cannot have that warm feeling. They treat other well, they admit, only to keep the population strong, so they can be self servingly safe in it! If there was a button that would provide the individual everything they could ever want as a need or a whim, but would kill everyone else, those who accept the presence of God accept higher levels of what's right, and so would not push it. There is absolutely nothing in the atheists' "philosophy" that says not to push it.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
"When people are decent, they say they have a warm feeling, not a sense of fear! But atheists cannot have that warm feeling."
-------------------------------------

Is that what you tell yourself? Really?

We have good emotions and bad ones as well, but do not let FEAR dominate our lives, do not flock to anyone who promises what he cannot deliver, out of fear and panic.

We will all return to the nothingness from which we sprung, our chance at existence over.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
There is no god, but there is a devil. You can see him in the terrified eyes of church-goers all over the world, SCARED of dying, who reach out for anyone with an "answer" for their panic.

He makes us do the most terrible things imaginable to each other in the name of a god. He divides us, and pits us against each other. He tells us we have Absolute Truth, and those other folk are evil, but not us, who have to kill them.

Every one of the most disgusting acts ever done by fellow Humans to others has been done in the name of god and the Ultimate Good.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
Despite what Phys1 and animah claim, I did not engage in "wild generalisations [sic]".

I did not claim such a thing.
All atheists are liars. I demonstrated that.

You only demonstrated that you are incapable of reason.
Will Phys1 provide the proof that leads them to make that statement?

It is impossible to prove to a delusional person that he is delusional. Snap out of it.
Moreover, the burden of proof is on you. The next fool will tell me that I have to believe in the flying spaghetti monster or prove the contrary. And so on and so forth. Life is too short for listening to you.
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2016
Like I said, the ignore button..... unless you're looking for a little low brow entertainment.... but the delusional will frantically rush toward the opportunity to argue, to desperately validate their delusion. Delusions are fragile things - they don't hold up well under the light of day. They require vigorous defense.
animah
5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
julianpenrod

Screams you can't prove (his) god doesn't exist

But he can't prove (his) god exists either

Oh the irony and pointlessness
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2016
Captain Stumpy tries to make it look like I don't know how to spell
@juli
actually, you did that yourself: you assume there is only the US spelling when the US grammar and language evolved from the Queen's English, which is also considered "correct" spelling (also the ORIGINAL spelling, BTW)
then tries to make it look like I can't spell the name I use
actually i was going for emasculation and feminization (since you can't figure out how to use a free dictionary, i am attempting to insure all spelling is US, just for you- this post only)
the rest of your post is nonsensical gibberish because you were caught not only in a generalization that isn't factual (and also hypocritical, as you actually call all non-religious liars) but also 'cause you got caught not able to utilize a freakin' free dictionary ...
calling a liar a liar is not hate, it's the truth
well juli, i not only called you a liar, i PROVED you were one

if the shoe fits...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2016
@juli cont'd
if Jesus wanted to control, then why didn't he run away
it's YOUR fairy tale... try reading the whole story: in order to GAIN control, he had to die on the cross, per your own book (hence the prayer to his "father" to take the cup from him, etc)
you're not much on reading OR comprehension, are you?
by pointing to someone else and blaming them
well, i PROVED you were a liar, and i also proved you are completely unfamiliar with your own religious tome... are you calling that a lie, even with the evidence right above you in B&W?
point is: you made a false statement with the intent to redirect the conversation from the topic into the morality of religion vs atheist
problem is: the worst people on this rock WRT breaking morals are the religious... in fact, i can prove you break your own commandments- so how does that make you superior enough to judge anyone?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2016
@juli the trolling girly fanatic
Captain Stumpy talks about "evidence refuting" that God is present
No, i didn't
quote what i said, liar-girl! LOL

there is no evidence proving god does or does not exist

BUT
there IS evidence that the only tome you have and use to justify your god exists is not only falsely authored, but blatantly WRONG (starting with GEN)
... considering this it suggests that your justification for the evidence of your deity is based upon FALSE evidence, thus a LIE, and it is being spread INTENTIONALLY, as it has been proven false by scientific evidence (in many ways/times)
And I proved that atheists are liars
you've proven no such thing

in fact, the more you post the more you validate that you are a delusional hypocritical lying troll
that is ALL that you have actually proven here

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2016
Like I said, the ignore button..... unless you're looking for a little low brow entertainment.
@Zzzz
well... everyone else is asleep, the cat is out, the neighbors are gone and the night is young...

sometimes a good poke of the stupid-nest is just what the doctor ordered for a laugh, and as i read the above from juli and her beliefs (and the delusions she is spreading) i gotta chuckle

laughter is the best medicine, especially when the idiots are doing all the heavy lifting, eh? it's kinda like watching juli perform as all three stooges at once

oh... and the funniest part is: juli doesn't actually even read her own tome!
that is the best part!
LMFAO

unlike most xtians, i not only have multiple copies of said tome, but different versions, including one original greek
AND a quick easy electronic one with built in concordance and translations from original text
animah
5 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2016
laughter is the best medicine

Actually, sailing is the best medicine. Are you taking you meds Captain?

:-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2016
laughter is the best medicine

Actually, sailing is the best medicine. Are you taking you meds Captain?

:-)
OOohh yeah... good point, Animah!
Maybe that should be corrected to "laughter from a sailboat is the best medicine" ??

personally, i want to own a metal hulled Junk... one of my absolute fav's out of all the sailing ships.... but i think my wife might need a multi-hull

One day i also hope to run into Captain Fatty Goodlander and Ganesh... the man is hilarious
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2016
A number of atheists said religion caused all wars and no atheist refuted it.  That makes them all liars. Captain Stumpy and the others can deny it, but that proves they are liars.
"julain" is not a legitimate name form. Captain Stumpy is a liar.
Captain Stumpy speaks of Christ going to the cross to gain control. That would make Jesus equal in nature to God and God, as the Creator, already has control, as such. He sought to being the intransigent to act decently without having to have God take immediate control and move them like puppets.
Every other antic is Captain Stumpy proving themselves a liar and vicious.
And, note, gkam now, too, is insisting God is not present, suggesting it is proven and reliable. But gkam, like every other atheist, will provide no proof of that statement. gkam, like every atheist who makes that statement but refuses to prove it, is a liar.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2016
A number of atheists said religion caused all wars and no atheist refuted it. That makes them all liars
@juli-the-IDIOT
lets see: by your own logic- fundamentalists also state that the scientific method is the work of the devil and that there is no evidence for things like: evolution, physics, medicine or the scientific method
you didn't refute it
that makes you a complete liar and unable to comprehend basic logic, science or reality
"julain" is not a legitimate name form
ROTFLMFAO

PS- who is to say i am not a christian?
that would mean, BY YOUR ABOVE DEFINITION, that all christians are LIARS, right?
i've not only been baptized Baptist AND Non-denominational, but i've also been part of the catholic and Methodist churches too!
LMFAO

so, per your own argument, and the biblical argument of Grace and Forgiveness, you can now state that all Christians are LIARS, right?

ROTFLMFAO
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2016
@jp
Could you wipe the radicalised foam of your mouth ?
There is no god. Jesus is long dead. After you die you disappear.
There is no heaven above. There is no hell below.
Live with it.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2016
Among other things, even fundamentalists do not call the scientific method false. No fundamentalist says there is no evidence for physics. Captain Stumpy is a liar.
At no time did I say anything to suggest I was a fundamentalist. Captain Stumpy is a liar.
And there is no irrefutable proof or even evidence of "evolution". If you call "proof" having someone put resin casts on a table and order you to believe they are "fossils" that is one thing, but no species was ever observed to change into another and that is the defining characteristic of "evolution".
If Captain Stumpy was a Christian, they would have called out the ilk of Phys1, gkam, animah and all those who insist God is not present for their proof long before this. Captain Stumpy is not even backing me up asking the liars here for their proof that God is not present. Captain Stumpy is not a Christian. Captain Stumpy is a liar to suggest they are.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2016
And, again, the atheists insist that God is not present. Will Phys1 provide their proof that God is not present? If not, then Phys1 admits themselves to be a liar, just as gkam and all the others who made the pronouncement but refused to prove it. No deceit by any of the God haters here will make up for those who insisted God is not present not proving their lie.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2016
even fundamentalists do not call the scientific method false
@juli
LIE
see Ken Ham
No fundamentalist says there is no evidence for physics
Again, see Ken Ham and his site or go here: http://www.creationism.org/

IF the only way to prove a point is to IGNORE the scientific method and then directly violate it's methodology then, by definition, this means that it is evidence that creationists and fundamentalists refute the method AND thus it's off-shoots, like PHYSICS
Also note: Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul
Guessoum, Nidhal
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
Considering they all reference the old testament (and are a part of the Abrahamic religions, thus Christianity) this means there is CLEAR EVIDENCE that religious fundamentalists are directly against and refuting the scientific method and it's evidence, like PHYSICS (which includes QM, BTW)

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2016
@juli cont'd
no irrefutable proof or even evidence of "evolution"
LIE
you don't accept the proof, therefore you are demonstrating your cognitive bias and fundamental roots
you can find evidence above in my links OR start here: http://www.talkor...comdesc/

when you can refute ALL the linked VALIDATED STUDIES then we can talk about there being no proof or even evidence for evolution

until then, you are simply repeating a known LIE due to cognitive bias and fear/emo
If Captain Stumpy was a Christian, they would have blah blah blah
ASSUMPTION

if you were a christian, you wouldn't post on Saturday (Sabbath), or even the now acceptable Sunday
you wouldn't also post a KNOWN LIE that can be proven to be a lie (like above re: evolution)
you would also not judge others

you would also not have pictures or figurines of anything naturally made in heaven or on earth, etc IRL or on the computer

you've proven yourself a blaspheming apostate
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2016
And, again, the atheists insist that God is not present. Will Phys1 provide their proof that God is not present? If not, then Phys1 admits themselves to be a liar, just as gkam and all the others who made the pronouncement but refused to prove it. No deceit by any of the God haters here will make up for those who insisted God is not present not proving their lie.

I would say that as the person bringing a god into the, the burden of proof is on you to PROVE it. And you can't say - "Look at everything around you" - it's not evidence provided by scientific method.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
And, again, the atheists insist that God is not present.
Athists don't insist that. I don't. All I can insist is that I don't believe it.

Will Phys1 provide their proof that God is not present? If not, then Phys1 admits themselves to be a liar, just as gkam and all the others who made the pronouncement but refused to prove it.
What kind of proof should one of them or me either would convince you I don't believe in god?

Skippy, you are calling them liars for telling you the truth. What, you think they really believe in god but are lying to you about it?

No deceit by any of the God haters here will make up for those who insisted God is not present not proving their lie.
How they going to hate something they (and me) don't believe in? Cher you got a logic disorder that is making you double down on stupid.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2016
More characteristic atheist lies.
No fundamentalist ever denied the scientific method of physics. Captain Stumpy does not demonstrate them saying they deny them, only that they deny "evolution" and, on the basis of that, that they deny the scientific method and physics since, as Captain Stumpy claims, "evolution" was proved by scientific reasoning and physics. But "evolution" was never proved by these since "evolution" was never proved. The defining quality of "evolution" is speciation and speciation was never seen to occur. All that "evolution" consists of is individuals with white coats placing resin casts on a table, lying and saying they're "fossils" and saying that they "prove" evolution" occurred. Captain Stumpy can provide no absolute, irrefutable evidence for "evolution". Captain Stumpy's definition of "proof", believing what you're told to believe.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2016
And, note, Captain Stumpy is a liar, saying a Christian would never do anything on a Saturday or Sunday. Christ repudiated the idea of doing nothing on the Sabbath. What I said about "evolution" is not a lie. It has never been proven and it is a lie. And judging people is not abridged by Christ. Morons cleave to statements like "Judge not". When Christ said not to judge, He meant not to make yourself necessarily a judge, jury and executioner. But it is permissible and even incumbent on people to discern the nature of those around them, to avoid being betrayed and to warn others of the malignant. Also, Christ did not condemn having images of things around.
An eminent insipidity on Captain Stumpy's part, too, "concluding" I necessarily belonged to a Christian sect! I never said I did! It is possible to accept the presence of God and respect much of what is credited to Christ without belonging to a structured sect. But Captain Stumpy is too blinded by hate,
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
But Captain Stumpy is too blinded by hate,
Well I might be wrong. But Cher from where I am sitting, you appear to be the mad angry grumpy hating one in this conversation.

If all these Skippys is lying to you and making you angry and insulting you and your god, why do you subject your self to such abuse and hatred? Have you made any converts in all the years you been postems here? Got a good record of successfully defending the faith?

Or do you feel a need to battle with the non-believers just on general principles no matter how bad they makes you feel? Just don't lie and say it don't make you feel bad, because it oozes out of every thing you write.

Or maybe it makes you feel good to do battle with them so you pass on a little hate that you have bottled up in your self? Don't lie and say you don't have hate for them, it oozes out of every thing you write.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2016
When atheists make a pronouncement that God is not present, the burden of proof is on them. They claim those who accept the presence of God not to be obeying "scientific" principles. But they do insist that they are obeying "scientific" principles. Therefore, they most certainly should provide proof.
And, face it, if an honest, honorable person has proof of something, what decent reason is there for them to refuse to provide it? If someone says there are purple giraffes in Australia and you had absolute proof there weren't, what honorable reason would there be not to provide it? Is that how the "scientific" method works, by withholding facts?
Atheists are liars. They declare that God is not present with the suggestion that they have indefatigable proof, but they don't. They hate God and deny His presence, but they have no reason to do so.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2016
And Uncle Ira is a liar, as well. Atheists say that God is not present. They never say they only disbelieve it. Has Uncle Ira not seen what the ilk of Phys1 and gkam said? To believe is to use what methods you have to derive what is as true as is possible with those methods. Given that the atheists say they use the "scientific" method, with all the reliance they claim should be invested in it, if they say they don't believe God is present, they are saying that that claim is verified. So they are saying God is not present. They are not voicing uncertainty, they are saying it is definitively true. Uncle Ira is a liar. But, then, all followers of the atheist movement are arrested development freaks and failures. They think nothing of lying about the presence of God just to be vicious. They lied about all the world's wars being caused by religion.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
When atheists make a pronouncement that God is not present, the burden of proof is on them.]/q] Like I said, your logic is disordered. To "prove" something is not there is self evident. I can say that Penrod-Skippy is not on this boat with me. And the only "proof" I have to offer is, HE IS NOT HERE.

If someone says there are purple giraffes in Australia,,,,
The onus is on him to prove it.It should not be hard because a purple giraffe, like a god would be hard to miss and easy to prove.

and you had absolute proof there weren't, what honorable reason would there be not to provide it?
Why should I provide "absolute proof" that there are no purple giraffes in Australia? I would love to see a purple giraffe in Australia but even more in Louisiana. You the one who claimed there are purple giraffes in Australia, I am the one that thinks that is really weird.

Anyhoo, enjoyed it. Back in the box you go Cher.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
And Uncle Ira is a liar, as well..
Choot, I guess I didn't stick you back in the box fast enough, eh? Skippy,, I am a lot of things, I am a silly fool sometimes, there are a whole of things I am ignorant on. But one thing you can always trust, the only way you can make me a liar is to misread or misquote or misunderstand something I wrote or said. I got no skin in your game here. I do not need to lie to you. The truth is easier when dealing with couyons like you.

Now you get the last word Skippy because you are really going back in the box this time. With your silly looking pointy cap. And you might want to take a flashlight with you in your box,,, in case you are afraid of being in the dark I mean.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy (that's coonass for: "The quality of the trolls sure has gone down in this place, I wish they would hurry up and find some smarter ones.")

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
More characteristic atheist lies.
No fundamentalist ever denied the scientific method of physics.

Maybe not. But they deny the results of it.
But "evolution" was never proved by these since "evolution" was never proved.

Guess that's why it's call the THEORY of Evolution. Like everything, it is evolving.
The defining quality of "evolution" is speciation and speciation was never seen to occur. All that "evolution" consists of is individuals with white coats placing resin casts on a table, lying and saying they're "fossils" and saying that they "prove" evolution" occurred.

Are you kidding? You have any idea of how many DIFFERENT fossils there are out there? Hell, I used to find them in the fields on my grandfathers farm.
Captain Stumpy can provide no absolute, irrefutable evidence for "evolution".

More evidence FOR it, than against it.
Captain Stumpy's definition of "proof", believing what you're told to believe.

Now THAT's religion.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
Captain Stumpy does not demonstrate them saying they deny them, only that they deny "evolution"
@juli
actually, some of those listed also deny physics, modern QM as well as science in general (especailly as it refutes the religious text)
try looking them up... oh wait, that would mean you would be proven wrong again!
"evolution" was never proved by these since "evolution" was never proved
so wait... you wanted PROOF, so i gave you a list of validated studies all in one easy to read link, but your rebuttal is simply to state that i have no proof and evolution wasn't ever proven?
how is that logical?
in fact, i can give you ONE link that not only proves evolution but that you are a chronic liar with a fanatical belief:
http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

that one link refutes every claim you made above about me not having any proof for evolution
it also demonstrates you are a liar (yet again)
2Bcont'd
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
"it also demonstrates you are a liar "
---------------------------------------

Got some real class on this forum.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
@juli cont'd
Captain Stumpy can provide no absolute, irrefutable evidence for "evolution"
already done
what you can't do is provide ANY reputable evidence that any validated study in the link above is wrong or even misleading... and that is just one link: you also can't refute Lenski's long term research and results
Christ repudiated the idea of doing nothing on the Sabbath
actually, he did NOT... he repudiated the need to put someone to death for doing necesarry labor, not from doing irreverent labor that was directly blasphemous and against the ten commandments (not suggestions, mind you)
When Christ said not to judge, He meant not to make yourself necessarily a judge, jury and executioner
oh, well then... it should be easy for you to provide this written rebuttal in his own words, right?
because what he said was in Matthew 7:1-3 KJV
he said not to judge others because it would come back to haunt you, to paraphrase
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2016
@juli cont'd
the problem with a subjective belief system is that it is SUBJECTIVE
one more problem with that is that your translation doesn't match the LITERAL translations and concordance translations
Also, Christ did not condemn having images of things around.
he said the ten commandments were still the LAW, and as such one commandment is :Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
thus a picture is a "likeness" as well as image
though not carved (graven) per the original translation, it IS still a likeness, thus ILLEGAL to own per your own religious tome, thus you violate at least TWO commandments
I necessarily belonged to a Christian sect! I never said I did
IF YOU QUOTE xtian dogma, and say you believe in christ, you're an xtian BY DEFINITION, moron... that is actually what the word means... you believe in the christ deity

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
@juli
and finally
Captain Stumpy's definition of "proof", believing what you're told to believe
actually, my definition of proof is providing un-refuted evidence that supports the conclusions that you are making, usually from a validated reputable source

considering that you still haven't actually provided a single piece of evidence supporting your own conclusions, that means, by definition, you are pulling a gkam...er, i mean, making a FALSE CLAIM (see link below)

.

Got some real class on this forum
@benni-kam
still aint figured out how to use the quote feature, jeenyus-girl?

of course this would upset you as you've been repeatedly proven to post false claims per the definitions located in this link
http://www.auburn...ion.html

Oh's Nose!
the gkam-2pid is downrating me 'cause she can't prove anything with evidence!
Oh Myyyyyyyyy!
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
Stumpy, outgrow it. I already send your email to the junk folder, and don't want to miss your stuff here. It's funny.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016
I already send your email to the junk folder,
thats too bad, because i proved to you how REAL i was ! LMFAO
and don't want to miss your stuff here. It's funny.
ROTFLMFAO
you do realise this makes NO sense at all, right?
so... you want to actually hear what i have to say but you can't handle the truth?

ROTFLMFAO

is this like sending me a document about the aria as proof you were affiliated with the commando's?
or was the airman of the year proof of commando affiliation?
or am i confusing your masters for life experience proof for commando affiliation?

it could have been the pictures you also sent .... but none of those actually had proof of your affiliation, so i wouldn't know
maybe it is your Toyota? or the solar panels? is THAT the proof of affiliation with 1 SOW? and what year were you there?
a REAL man would send me his DD-214 LONG b/c he would have nothing to hide...especially since i offered mine as soon as i saw yours

ROTFLMFAO
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016
Yeah, . . ROTFLMFAO

Quite original.

Please get over your pique. You're coming apart.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.