This just in: Stupid Evil Bastard shows up as the 14th link when doing a Google Search for “Kent Hovind.” The link returned is to the most commented thread here on SEB. Just the thought of it gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling.
|
||||
SEB stalks “Dr.” Kent Hovind.This just in: Stupid Evil Bastard shows up as the 14th link when doing a Google Search for “Kent Hovind.” The link returned is to the most commented thread here on SEB. Just the thought of it gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling. 175 comments to SEB stalks “Dr.” Kent Hovind.Leave a Reply |
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2001 - 2012 Stupid Evil Bastard - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
||||
An atheist is anybody who is not a theist and that includes the so-called agnostics.
It’s the theist’s job to define what they mean by “god” and to conclusively prove that such a thing exists. It’s not the atheist’s job to prove a negative. In other words, the burden of proof rests on the theist and on the theist alone.
I’d go a step further and call out the agnostics as being the dishonest ones. The reality is, you act on what you think you know. Theists and agnostics alike will still look both ways before crossing the street, because they already believe that there are no gods who will save them from being hit by a car. They wear jackets and pack umbrellas when it’s cold and rainy.
If you shall know them by their fruits, then I must say, I find the whole tree rather telling.
In addition to what Elwed and Patness said I’d only add that science is not a thing, but a process. It’s not something you can “know the whole of” because it’s not a thing, but a way of learning more about reality. The process itself can easily be flawed if the person doing the process assumes too much or allows their personal biases to get in the way. It is far from a perfect process, but it’s still the best one we have.
Like atheism, the definition of agnosticism is not universally agreed upon. However, the term is indeed tainted by allegation of intellectual dishonesty for refusing to call a spade a spade.
I don’t mind calling myself an apathetic agnostic atheist, though, just to cover all the bases: “I don’t believe, I don’t know, I don’t care”.
Double-dipping:
Top 10 Conversation Killers for Atheists
Note item 1.
There’s no proof that unicorns don’t exist either. Should I act as if there are unicorns lurking around the corner, or am I being more intellectually honest to declare that I’ll believe in unicorns when I see unicorns? On the other hand, I don’t know the sun will rise tomorrow. I’ve got a lot of good reasons to, so expect that it will. All the reasonable expectations of god rest in unicorns, and all of the reasonable expectations that the sun will rise tomorrow are with science. Therefore, I trust science.
There’s not just a lack of proof of the divine, there’s a plethora of argument and experiment against it. There is no such thing as the supernatural outside of fiction.
hmmm…. Im so happy that I always investigated everything in my life,, before I became a christian I alway investigated the evolution theorie I always KNEW that something was wrong with it! COME ON PEOPLE! Think!
OK heres my theorie:::
God DID create the world AND God DID make a heaven for US!!!! so al these discusions are worth NOTHING! just do what you have to do but think about 1 thing… DID WE REALLY EVOLVE OUT OF NOTHING!? so we really dont have a soul and we dont have RULES to obey? EVERY country thats been astablished and the rules that belong to these countries are based on Biblical rules.. just take the ten commandmends okay now take the rule book of any country in the world and reed it carfully. hmmm…. lookalike???? YES BASED ON THE BIBLE, so if everything in the bible is false…. so are the rules of your country? so washington was a false man(a great believer)… im not saying every cristian has the right to say anything they want and justify everything they do… but really… evolved out of a prehistoric soup… evolved into a fish…(i surtanly dont have gils…) think! in your heart lies the answer, just give it a chance to say something!
OHH MisterMook,, wheres the proof of the BIGBANG? i dont know or heard anybody that was there or wrote it on a peace of paper.. The bible is THE oldest book of the earth WHY IS THIS NOT PROOF? over the ages of historie there is not ONE historican that wrote about evolution.. and WHY isnt anything evolving now… i dont see a monky turning into a human… i dont see a fish thats getting leggs… theres no form of evolution in the world these days…
IF anyone can give me REAL proof,, not theories,, about the evolution, ill stop believing in God and he can have everything i own.
THE REASON WHY EVERYONE HATES KENT HOVIND IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW HE’S RIGHT AND YOU CANT PROOF HIM WRONG! SO CHILL AND LEAVE THE MAN ALLONE!
and about his scandal.. every human makes mistakes. YOU DO TO! and im making mistakes every day…
GREETZ FROM HOLLAND! and dont forget! dont give up on God he sutainly doesnt give up on you!
Liefje “there is a god”- ik heb maar een vraag: hoe oud ben jij? Groeten uit Wenen, zilch
[Gets popcorn, settles down for the show]
Wow, that has to be one of the more laughably inept arguments for God I’ve ever seen.
I would have expected better from the land that gave us Focus and the coffeeshop.
Sadie- re your signature: remember, the more you travel, the less you know. Think about it.
This is the layman’s version, which if you’ll forgive me is the only version you’re likely to understand. It’s in the measurement of the background radiation of the universe and the movements of galaxies that we can observe from our planet. The universe is expanding as well as moving, and that’s something that you can mathematically regress backwards in a somewhat similar way that you can track the arc of a baseball back to a point on a baseball field. By the distance between galaxies you can measure how much energy was put into moving them apart, which several clever fellows have determined that is a sum very nearly on the order of all of the energy left in the universe.
Most people imagine the Big Bang as some sort of explosion, but it’s more like a Slinky tightly wound and then stretched apart. Even if the Slinky were stretched into an impossibly long wire, with the proper forensics you could still determine its original shape.
But really, the issue isn’t that you’re not provided with proof, is it? It’s that you’re too dim to understand when proof is given. Oh, and the Bible isn’t nearly the oldest book on Earth. That’s just silly. There are even other works of fiction older.
Zilch—Taoism in action.
And another drive-by bore.
“I have researched evolution,” (yeah, right), “don’t like it,” (stating the obvious), “and here’s some theistic trite I’m pulling out of my ass and some evidence I don’t have a clue about science in general and evolution in particular.” (we knew this all along)
Now, now, elwed: jedem Tierchen sein Plaisirchen.
Zilch: Diese Tierchen sollten aber unter ihrem feuchten Stein bleiben
But elwed: how would we amuse ourselves, if all these creatures stayed under their soggy rocks?
Anyone got a Scooby what the merchants are rabbiting about. With heaps like this on our Germans, we might as well get elephants. Though we never get fourby’s showing their boat races- they keep their norths shut.
Under a damp rock indeed.
I don’t know about you, Last Hussar, but I always keep my north shut. Just in case.
I don’t Adam you’re from the Smoke- next you’ll say your a Lilywhite from the Lane. Better that than a Gooner.
One of its feet is both the same.
What have ducks got to do with this?
They rhyme.
˙ƃɐq ǝɥʇ ǝpısʇno ƃuıʞuıɥʇ sı ʇɐɔ ǝɥʇ ‘ʎɐʍ ɹǝɥʇıǝ ˙ʇ,uop ʎǝɥʇ sdɐɥɹǝd ɹo