Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

What the fuck are you talking about? These are the accusations you continue to make with NOTHING to back it up.

Try reading the fucking discussion you moron.

Then show me where it is I tried to bury the science of evolution. Come on coward... show us where... you keep saying stupid shit like that... back it the fuck up or shut the fuck up.


Your behavior in this thread and nearly every other that touches on the subject, backs it up. You do nothing but try to change the subject and attack those who profess an ABSENCE of belief in a deity.

Now stfu, coward.
 
Thanks, for proving that you have a short attention span. He does not agree with you. He was mocking your position.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. - Bertrand Russell

LMAO... keep trying to spin coward... are you going to continue running away from backing up your accusations?

Are you COWARD?
 
Your behavior in this thread and nearly every other that touches on the subject, backs it up. You do nothing but try to change the subject and attack those who profess an ABSENCE of belief in a deity.

Now stfu, coward.

So again you cannot link to anything to back up your accusation? You simply restate your accusation?
 
This thread is on evolution String. The topic was on those that don't believe in evolution and why. Darla came on and stated that the right likes to ignore science. I pointed out that both sides ignore science when it suits them. Then I went on to address PMPs comments on evolution.

You have been every much a part of the discussion on atheist and agnostic that I have. So quit your whining.

Now do go on running away from your accusations you coward.
 
LMAO... keep trying to spin coward... are you going to continue running away from backing up your accusations?

Are you COWARD?

The only spin is yours. It is an undeniable fact that Russell's point was to mock the agnostic position and establish that atheists do not necessarily claim certainty. The sentence you quoted showed his disinterests with semantic arguments but the full quote explains why he is an atheist rather than an agnostic.

It is obvious why you are an anti science Republican.
 
The only spin is yours. It is an undeniable fact that Russell's point was to mock the agnostic position and establish that atheists do not necessarily claim certainty. The sentence you quoted showed his disinterests with semantic arguments but the full quote explains why he is an atheist rather than an agnostic.

It is obvious why you are an anti science Republican.

1) I commented on the portion YOU posted... but his position is the same as yours... one in which he is actually agnostic, but wants to proclaim himself atheist. Words have meanings for a reason. The fact that you choose to ignore them is on you. But it doesn't change the meanings of those words.

2) Again you call me anti science... let me guess... you will once again run like a coward rather than back that accusation up with any evidence?

What say you coward? Going to back it up this time or are you going to run away again?
 
1) I commented on the portion YOU posted... but his position is the same as yours... one in which he is actually agnostic, but wants to proclaim himself atheist. Words have meanings for a reason. The fact that you choose to ignore them is on you. But it doesn't change the meanings of those words.

2) Again you call me anti science... let me guess... you will once again run like a coward rather than back that accusation up with any evidence?

What say you coward? Going to back it up this time or are you going to run away again?

But you are not arguing semantics. You are sooooo fucking stupid. lol

Words have imperfect and evolving meanings and those meanings do NOT trump the material facts. Your jumbled definitions and sloppy attempt to define disbelief as being different than an absence of belief have absolutely no effect on what I or other atheists ACTUALLY believe. My position is neither unique nor novel and much better men than you have argued the same.

Agnostic does NOT mean an absence of belief in a deity or an absence of belief in general. It means an absence of knowledge. You are very very very agnostic on a wide range of subjects and yet arrogant enough to claim to know what atheists believe or to be better able to label them.
 
evolution2013-5.png
 
But you are not arguing semantics. You are sooooo fucking stupid. lol

Words have imperfect and evolving meanings and those meanings do NOT trump the material facts.

ROFLMAO... what material fact are you referring to moron?

But do go on with regards to words having evolving meanings... your spin should be quite amusing.



Your jumbled definitions and sloppy attempt to define disbelief as being different than an absence of belief have absolutely no effect on what I or other atheists ACTUALLY believe. My position is neither unique nor novel and much better men than you have argued the same.

To call my specific definitions, the ones found in the dictionary: "jumbled" as you continue to ramble on with no basis in your argument... it pure comedy.

Agnostic does NOT mean an absence of belief in a deity or an absence of belief in general. It means an absence of knowledge. You are very very very agnostic on a wide range of subjects and yet arrogant enough to claim to know what atheists believe or to be better able to label them.

You continue with your absurdity...

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

But I know... you make up your own definitions of words...

You also are still running away from your accusations aren't you coward?

Can't help but notice you are trying to divert the topic of the thread yet again.
 
Last edited:
No, you did not point it out to the newb, liar. Go ahead and provide him with the thread.

Pretty much this. If I wasn't convinced of evolution at the start of this thread...I would be this far into it. All of the responses from deniers have been pretty much as intellectually bankrupt as anything I have ever seen.
 
Back
Top