The Amazing Atheist Discussion

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

He's exaggerating. He takes points and exaggerates them for comedic effect.

 

 

 

lol

 

 

What government "forbids creation (which I assume you mean creationism)"? Definitely not the United States, or pretty much any country in the world.

No because why is evolution supported by criminal and unconstitutional income tax and state tax? You need to observe things like this. Income tax is theft. The IRS stole over 3k of my W-2s this year. That is going to abortion, evolution and other various anti-american things.

 

I haven't seen Comfort's science. but it's like Kent Hovind, he is the only guy we got on the Creation side. 

 

Aristotle( not Christian)

Galileo 

Nikola Tesla(Serbian Orthodox Christian)

Einstein(theist)

Sagan(theist agnostic)

Newton(theistic I think)

 

 

Men who laid the foundations of science believed in a creator. So according to TJ they're idiots.

 

Also Tesla has the the backberry proposed in 1909. Wow those Christians man, what primitive voo doo men

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er3pCWcX-zs

 

EDIT: I want people to know I'm not sucking up to Kent Hovind like he's god or anything. He is a extremely hard working man and is highly intelligent. People dog him for the wrong reasons. I disagree with Hovind on the following about salvation. Kent Hovind teaches a works-based salvation. Which means you live by faith in Jesus Christ alone. But you need to repent of all your sins. That is called "lordship salvation" you don't need to give up anything to be saved.

 

Also I believe in an old earth, NO evolution. Because I trust other dating methods. Such as Uranium- lead dating. Carbon dating cannot work period.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/8288863/Dinosaurs-survived-for-at-least-700000-years-after-meteorite-collision.html

So a dinosaur survived an alleged asteroid impact with no proof at all? Hmm maybe the flood of Noah did it? Well it didn't. There was a flood before Noah's flood in the Bible. It's a belief for some Christians, before Lucifer fell from heaven. He actually had dominion over the earth with God's permission of course. 

In fact Noah's Ark was found where the Bible stated it was. Measurements and all intact. It's on youtube.

 

But yes I obviously believe in dinosaurs, I would want you to commit me if I didn't. But that's not proof for "millions of years of evolution" Kent Hovind is amazing on his dinosaur knowledge and that's an aspect people often ignore about him.

 

You know the loch ness monster  is a plesiosaurus? It has had hundred of thousands of witness accounts. No one lies about stuff like that!

Edited January 19, 2014 by TheMarkz0ne

[SwigglySwiggly 358]

WARNING EGGHEAD STUFF read at own risk

 

 

Also I believe in an old earth, NO evolution. Because I trust other dating methods. Such as Uranium- lead dating. Carbon dating cannot work period.

 

 

Isn't uranium-lead dating very similar to carbon dating? (i'm no scientist but this is what I have been taught)

Uranium turns into lead after it decays, the time period it takes to decay is called "Halflife"

Uranium-lead dating is when you detect the radioactivity in uranium to check how long it's halflife is left (how long its been decaying/turning into lead) 

Carbon dating is checking the halflife of radioactive carbon (you have radioactive carbon, I do, we all do) and we check how long its been decaying to date it. 

Both methods are similar

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph...-collision.html So a dinosaur survived an alleged asteroid impact with no proof at all? Hmm maybe the flood of Noah did it? Well it didn't

 

 

Dinosaurs being carbon dated to only die a thousand years ago? that's an easy answer. (this mystery has already been debunked)

The article is very misleading but still true, the reason why the dinosaur's carbon dating was only 1000 years because it's radioactive carbon has been recycled within an isolated environment (this prevents the ageing affect and makes it seem as if the fossil hasn't aged at all) , an environment such as the ocean is a good example, the deepest parts of the ocean have been isolated for such a long time.

 

This was an error in carbon dating.

 

 

 

In fact Noah's Ark was found where the Bible stated it was. Measurements and all intact. It's on youtube.

 

 

"The ark is to be 450 feet [140 meters / 300 cubits] long, 75 feet [23 meters / 50 cubits] wide and 45 feet [14 meters / 30 cubits] high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches [1 cubit] of the top"

^Quoted from the bible^

 

So 3220m squared of space and 14m tall?  with 14m verticall space you can stack 2 giraffes on each other so there can only be 2 floors.

so 7440m squared and 7m tall is the total space. And to fit 2 of each animal.... and animals need food and you don't want them eating each other (or they'll go extinct) and drinkable water (sea water kills). We can already see the Ark doesn't work.

 

PS. its fake

 

 

 

Also Tesla has the the backberry proposed in 1909. Wow those Christians man, what primitive voo doo men

Nikolai is known for his scientific accomplishments... not his religious accomplishments. Nikolai is not a creationist scientist but a scientist who is also a creationist. Creationist scientists try to prove that there was  a flood and try to date the judgement day. Scientists who are creationists are just as smart as scientists who are atheistic.

 

Just because a scientist is religious and discovered something not about religion, doesn't make religion right, it makes the discovery right.

(I'm gong to keep my quote^)

 

 

 

Men who laid the foundations of science believed in a creator. So according to TJ they're idiots

I dislike TJ but agree with his views, he's an asshole and I agree that Scientist who are also creationists are not idiots.

But like I said, just because they're creationist, it doesn't mean they proved religion right.

Edited January 19, 2014 by SwigglySwiggly

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

WARNING EGGHEAD STUFF read at own risk

 

 

 

 

Isn't uranium-lead dating very similar to carbon dating? (i'm no scientist but this is what I have been taught)

Uranium turns into lead after it decays, the time period it takes to decay is called "Halflife"

Uranium-lead dating is when you detect the radioactivity in uranium to check how long it's halflife is left (how long its been decaying/turning into lead) 

Carbon dating is checking the halflife of radioactive carbon (you have radioactive carbon, I do, we all do) and we check how long its been decaying to date it. 

Both methods are similar

 

 

 

 

 

Dinosaurs being carbon dated to only die a thousand years ago? that's an easy answer. (this mystery has already been debunked)

The article is very misleading but still true, the reason why the dinosaur's carbon dating was only 1000 years because it's radioactive carbon has been recycled within an isolated environment (this prevents the ageing affect and makes it seem as if the fossil hasn't aged at all) , an environment such as the ocean is a good example, the deepest parts of the ocean have been isolated for such a long time.

 

This was an error in carbon dating.

 

 

 

 

 

"The ark is to be 450 feet [140 meters / 300 cubits] long, 75 feet [23 meters / 50 cubits] wide and 45 feet [14 meters / 30 cubits] high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches [1 cubit] of the top"

^Quoted from the bible^

 

So 3220m squared of space and 14m tall?  with 14m verticall space you can stack 2 giraffes on each other so there can only be 2 floors.

so 7440m squared and 7m tall is the total space. And to fit 2 of each animal.... and animals need food and you don't want them eating each other (or they'll go extinct) and drinkable water (sea water kills). We can already see the Ark doesn't work.

 

PS. its fake

 

 

 

Nikolai is known for his scientific accomplishments... not his religious accomplishments. Nikolai is not a creationist scientist but a scientist who is also a creationist. Creationist scientists try to prove that there was  a flood and try to date the judgement day. Scientists who are creationists are just as smart as scientists who are atheistic.

 

Just because a scientist is religious and discovered something not about religion, doesn't make religion right, it makes the discovery right.

(I'm gong to keep my quote^)

 

 

 

I dislike TJ but agree with his views, he's an asshole and I agree that Scientist who are also creationists are not idiots.

But like I said, just because they're creationist, it doesn't mean they proved religion right.

Well the Ark is not a fake. It was found in Mt Ararat! Written by Moses who knew nothing about Noah and the flood. Also Sodom was found. It has the most concentrated form of sulfur on the planet. past 95% pure brimstone.

 

Religion and the Bible are two different things. The Bible is actually the most anti religious book you will read. It not only condemned pagan worship. God Himself, Jesus Christ called out the religious leaders under Roman rule. The Pharisees. I'm not using Tesla as a piece to prove creation. I'm only making a point. That TJ Kirk, is an elitist who believe that your level of human worth depends on what you believe in. The Ark was not fake by the way, you have no proof. When scripture where it is

 

The red sea crossing. The pathway that Moses and the Israelites walked through, Has Egyptian chariots and skeletal remains. Funny considering modern history books will not acknowledge it. 

The only men who contributed to creation cause(whether or not they're saved Christians I don't know) Are Kent Hovind, Ron Wyatt and Ken Ham.

 

You need archaeology too. Not just science. Evolution CANNOT have the given creation proof in the smithsonian museum. The Smithsonian on record has actually locked away fossils or remains. Look up Seth Tanner and the treasures of giant mummies(Egyptian) in the grand canyon. They were stolen. the only thing we have on record are the photos.

 

 Genesis 1:1-4

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

 

No here's where things on evolution get crafty. Some theistic evolutionist who're Christian, Like Hugh Ross try to make Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 have gap. Meaning the big bang and dinosaurs according to Darwin's theory work. It cannot work. It is like putting a VHS tape into a DVD player. However there is a verse that supports an old earth that people stick in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2

 

Jeremiah 4:23-29

 

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.

27 For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black; because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.

 

Adam is not in this verse. this is talking about Lucifer and angels. Now notice how in 28, the LORD will not repent. But we go to verse like Genesis 9:13, what happened after the flood of Noah.

 

Genesis 9:13

 

 "I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth."

 

This is the second flood that hit the earth. This was man's flood.

Edited January 19, 2014 by TheMarkz0ne

[SwigglySwiggly 358]

(I'd like to keep this at a debate and not escalate it any further, we shall keep this at debate level, a tear within the Brony community is the last thing we need, we're all brothers and sisters after all.)

Well the Ark is not a fake. It was found in Mt Ararat! Written by Moses who knew nothing about Noah and the flood. Also Sodom was found. It has the most concentrated form of sulfur on the planet. past 95% pure brimstone.

 

Brimstone/sulfur same thing (I think the Bible called it brimstone instead of sulfur) 

The supposed ark on Mt.Ararat has been there for a long time and has been known to mankind for a while now. (what is Sodom?)

It's funny how no-ones been able to dig up the Ark. The ark is visible on the mountain but so far we know its NOT made of wood... quite possible a fissure in the earth (fissures and ships both have an oval like shape) so until someone goes to Turkey and digs up that hole in the ground... this Ark theory will remain un-bunked.

 

Neither you or I am right, both our opinions are just theories.

 

And the Brimstone/sulfur has nothing to do with the ark... I don't see how brimstone and ships are related.

(Unless Noah built a combustion/steam engine on the ark that runs on the flammability of Sulfur, don't take this seriously though) 

 

Besides mt.Ararat is a Mountain, not just a mountain but a dormant VOLCANO... that kinda explains why there is ALOT of sulfur.

The sulfur argument is invalid and is not related to the debate. Volcano=sulfur

(if you ever want to dig up the ark thingy, don't breathe, sulfur is BAD!)

 

And I don't see how the treasures in the Grand Canyon is related to this topic (maybe you can explain later).

Besides I'll attempt to debunk this, the grand canyon has/had water flowing through it (I think it still flows, idk I'm not American) water is what living beings need to live. The natives used to live in the grand canyon (they mysteriously disappeared some time ago).

The natives lived in small towns/cities carved straight into the grand canyons's walls, the natives had a quick way of messaging other tribes via smoke and mirrored lights (the messaging system was similar to Morse). The natives of America lived in a massive span of area and had amazing communication at range.

 

This remains a mystery... but wtf? its not related to the ark is it?

 

(btw if you missed this, I have pretty much debunked everything)

 

 

 

 

The Bible is actually the most anti religious book you will read

^^^ I can say otherwise because I was once a Catholic (Christianity branched off of Catholic) I've read the bible as a child and its VERY religious.

(fun fact, Christianity, Catholics, Jewish and Islam all worship the same god, just differently (and yet they shall be debunked))

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT!=  A fissure in the earth would mean the exposure of Sulfur..... (a fissure in the earth will expose sulfur but I don't think you can dig a hole using an Ark as the tool) (christians and catholics share the same holy book)

Edited January 19, 2014 by SwigglySwiggly

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

(I'd like to keep this at a debate and not escalate it any further, we shall keep this at debate level, a tear within the Brony community is the last thing we need, we're all brothers and sisters after all.)

Brimstone/sulfur same thing (I think the Bible called it brimstone instead of sulfur) 

The supposed ark on Mt.Ararat has been there for a long time and has been known to mankind for a while now. (what is Sodom?)

It's funny how no-ones been able to dig up the Ark. The ark is visible on the mountain but so far we know its NOT made of wood... quite possible a fissure in the earth (fissures and ships both have an oval like shape) so until someone goes to Turkey and digs up that hole in the ground... this Ark theory will remain un-bunked.

 

Neither you or I am right, both our opinions are just theories.

 

And the Brimstone/sulfur has nothing to do with the ark... I don't see how brimstone and ships are related.

(Unless Noah built a combustion/steam engine on the ark that runs on the flammability of Sulfur, don't take this seriously though) 

 

Besides mt.Ararat is a Mountain, not just a mountain but a dormant VOLCANO... that kinda explains why there is ALOT of sulfur.

The sulfur argument is invalid and is not related to the debate. Volcano=sulfur

(if you ever want to dig up the ark thingy, don't breathe, sulfur is BAD!)

 

And I don't see how the treasures in the Grand Canyon is related to this topic (maybe you can explain later).

Besides I'll attempt to debunk this, the grand canyon has/had water flowing through it (I think it still flows, idk I'm not American) water is what living beings need to live. The natives used to live in the grand canyon (they mysteriously disappeared some time ago).

The natives lived in small towns/cities carved straight into the grand canyons's walls, the natives had a quick way of messaging other tribes via smoke and mirrored lights (the messaging system was similar to Morse). The natives of America lived in a massive span of area and had amazing communication at range.

 

This remains a mystery... but wtf? its not related to the ark is it?

 

(btw if you missed this, I have pretty much debunked everything)

 

 

 

 

^^^ I can say otherwise because I was once a Catholic (Christianity branched off of Catholic) I've read the bible as a child and its VERY religious.

(fun fact, Christianity, Catholics, Jewish and Islam all worship the same god, just differently (and yet they shall be debunked))

i don't know why you're getting so upset =( Just a friendly debate. I threw other things aside from the ark to show you how bias and criminal the Smithsonian is for concealing the Bible and the Science and Archaeology is has within the book. Catholocism is not Christianity my friend, this will come off as a shock. but it's Satan's actual church.

 

Onto the topic though we both agree this world is old. Is that proof for evolution? No not even close! I will go into the psychological realm of evolution and propaganda, just to have this seem clearer to you

 Evolution propaganda back in the 40s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LYD0Fzf1LU

 

in 1998

 

 

Watch both. If you have questions ask them and I will explain.

[Guest]

 

 

i don't know why you're getting so upset =( Just a friendly debate.

 

Bit of free advice Mark; this tactic is known as an appeal to emotion and it's a novice move. More or less trying to upset the opponent by insisting they are upset. It's the argument of annoyance as well. Keep it relevant and respectful please. Debate without use of such tactics. Intentional or not, please avoid it in the future.

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

 

Bit of free advice Mark; this tactic is known as an appeal to emotion and it's a novice move. More or less trying to upset the opponent by insisting they are upset. It's the argument of annoyance as well. Keep it relevant and respectful please. Debate without use of such tactics. Intentional or not, please avoid it in the future.

 

I wasn't using a tactic. I had no intentions of upsetting him. I am just bringing whatever I can, if he doesn't like it then nothing I can do about it.

Edited January 19, 2014 by TheMarkz0ne

[Guest]

I wasn't using a tactic. I had no intentions of upsetting him. I am just bringing whatever I can, if he doesn't like it then nothing I can do about it.

Yes there is actually, you can keep your argument respectful. Attack the argument, not the arguer. You have been told now that it is a disrespectful thing to do, so now you have no excuse to do it again. I will let this time pass, however disrespectful argument tactics are not tolerated and only serve to bring us further from finding the truth.

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

Yes there is actually, you can keep your argument respectful. Attack the argument, not the arguer. You have been told now that it is a disrespectful thing to do, so now you have no excuse to do it again. I will let this time pass, however disrespectful argument tactics are not tolerated and only serve to bring us further from finding the truth.

The last time, I didn't bring up sources. Now I am. The issue is there's no refutation for the sources. We came to a common ground that we both believe in an old earth. I don't believe in evolution and he does.  

[Dark Heart 284]

You guys make me laugh always when trying to debate, but i digress.

 

I thought this was an amazing atheist discussion, not evolution or ark crap, seriously why is it the every single thing as to devolve to religion vs none believers?

 

Here enjoy since we using youtube:

Edited January 19, 2014 by Dark Heart

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

You guys make me laugh always when trying to debate, but i digress.

 

I thought this was an amazing atheist discussion, not evolution or ark crap, seriously why is it the every single thing as to devolve to religion vs none believers?

 

Here enjoy since we using youtube:

I thought that was funny. But the reason why is because TJ made a video summing up people who don't accept the evolution theory as truth need to go on the short bus. I started talking about TJ and how I actually used to like his videos. When I was like 14, it's amazing how much you can grow up in 6-7 years.

[SwigglySwiggly 358]

i don't know why you're getting so upset

I'm not upset, I'm actually quite hyped because I find debates fun, I only said that we should keep this at debate level because debates often go out of hand. I was never upset, don't worry.

 

gg (unless you want another round)

 

@,  

Thanks for intervening while I was afk (don't want a debate to turn into an argument)

 

@@Dark Heart,

This topic is about TJ and he has view and opinions on religion too

(kinda explains how this debate started) 

 

 

Catholocism is not Christianity my friend, this will come off as a shock. but it's Satan's actual church

 

I can say otherwise, I've been to christian and catholic churches and the theme is different but everything else is exactly the same (prayers, traditions and suchsuch) 

Edited January 19, 2014 by SwigglySwiggly

[Dark Heart 284]

I thought that was funny. But the reason why is because TJ made a video summing up people who don't accept the evolution theory as truth need to go on the short bus. I started talking about TJ and how I actually used to like his videos. When I was like 14, it's amazing how much you can grow up in 6-7 years.

To me its still a bit childish to bring religion up, from the very first post on this topic, you went and said, "Am A Christian", as to instigate you are superior to others, when discusion is not about you, but about your opinion as a general about the AA.

 

Again, this is not a topic meant for a debate but rather to see the views on others about this particular characters, cause the main reason the OP made this topic its cause he felt disgust about the rape issue the AA videos, yet again as i said previously it goes from that to religion and evolution why?

 

I respect your believes in god and what not, but if you want to make arguments  about your beliefs and religion make them in the proper topic, not here were the main point of the topic is AA and hes look on Rape/jokes to begin whit.

 

Am an atheist do i go on every single post saying "Am an Atheist and i hate religion" on topics that as nothing to do whit religion discussion? NO

Of course this is about an "Atheist Figure" but the reason this topic start was about rape and not hes beliefs in religion etc etc.

 

Anyways, As for the OT:

I think most people who troll thru youtube a lot well have seen at least a couple of hes videos once or twice, and yes sometimes i find him annoying and sometimes he disgust me on some of hes points, but he does have hes moments of interest, again all i need to see its the title of one of hes videos and i can already guess whats he gonna talk about, so i tend to stay away from videos i believe is gonna be somewhat stupid.

[Acchan 232]

Stuff like this is why I stopped discussing religion on the internet. It always boils down to a mess.

[SwigglySwiggly 358]

Stuff like this is why I stopped discussing religion on the internet. It always boils down to a mess.

this topic didn't boil down to a mess though, it was a fair debate

[Acchan 232]

this topic didn't boil down to a mess though, it was a fair debate

Miracle of miracles! Le gasp! (By the way, doesn't this belong in the debate pit?)

[SwigglySwiggly 358]

Miracle of miracles! Le gasp! (By the way, doesn't this belong in the debate pit?)

no the topic was about discussion but it turned into a debate XD

[Acchan 232]

no the topic was about discussion but it turned into a debate XD

Ah. I see. So it's a non-debate debate. Or something.

[SwigglySwiggly 358]

Ah. I see. So it's a non-debate debate. Or something.

Its a non debate topic that ended up with a debate

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

To me its still a bit childish to bring religion up, from the very first post on this topic, you went and said, "Am A Christian", as to instigate you are superior to others, when discusion is not about you, but about your opinion as a general about the AA.

 

Again, this is not a topic meant for a debate but rather to see the views on others about this particular characters, cause the main reason the OP made this topic its cause he felt disgust about the rape issue the AA videos, yet again as i said previously it goes from that to religion and evolution why?

 

I respect your believes in god and what not, but if you want to make arguments  about your beliefs and religion make them in the proper topic, not here were the main point of the topic is AA and hes look on Rape/jokes to begin whit.

 

Am an atheist do i go on every single post saying "Am an Atheist and i hate religion" on topics that as nothing to do whit religion discussion? NO

Of course this is about an "Atheist Figure" but the reason this topic start was about rape and not hes beliefs in religion etc etc.

 

Anyways, As for the OT:

I think most people who troll thru youtube a lot well have seen at least a couple of hes videos once or twice, and yes sometimes i find him annoying and sometimes he disgust me on some of hes points, but he does have hes moments of interest, again all i need to see its the title of one of hes videos and i can already guess whats he gonna talk about, so i tend to stay away from videos i believe is gonna be somewhat stupid.

Evolution is a religion. It matters because we have people like TJ Kirk making the wrong message. I just made friends with an atheist yesterday on this forum. Really nice man and we're having a great time getting to know each other. I am only saying I'm Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ and that He's God and the only way to heaven.

 

TJ is like to Chris Hitchens 

 as 

McDonalds is to a 5 star steak dinner 

 

 

Christopher Hitchens was a polite and well mannered man. Actually would admit to being wrong. He was an atheist. I'd rather him be mentioned more than people like TJ  and Dawkins who go "religion fairy tale bla bla blah earth flat bla bla bla creationist don't know biology." That's what I'm against. It's the same for phony Christians like the Westboro Baptist who hates the jews and garner negative attention and TJ thinks those are real Christians.

[Acchan 232]

Its a non debate topic that ended up with a debate

Ah... one of those. Well, I saw the title and I thought "... Debate." But that's just me.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Rinne

[SwigglySwiggly 358]

 

 

Evolution is a religion

I'll shoot you for that quote, (its not a religion its a theory of science) 

 

 

 

I am only saying I'm Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ and that He's God and the only way to heaven.

I understand I was religious too (until I took an arrow the the knee) but you're emotions shouldn't judge your actions within a debate.

 

 

 

TJ  and Dawkins who go "religion fairy tale bla bla blah earth flat bla bla bla creationist don't know biology."

I agree TJ does that (because he is an asshole), but Richard Dawkins is a respectable man because unlike TJ, he doesn't argue/bash on religion, he debates (a debate is more friendly than an argument).

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

I'll shoot you for that quote, (its not a religion its a theory of science) 

 

 

 

I understand I was religious too (until I took an arrow the the knee) but you're emotions shouldn't judge your actions within a debate.

 

 

 

I agree TJ does that (because he is an asshole), but Richard Dawkins is a respectable man because unlike TJ, he doesn't argue/bash on religion, he debates (a debate is more friendly than an argument).

"Science! it works bitches."

-Richard "Agnostic" Dawkins 

 

That sound respectable to you? Is it also respectable to insult a young girl for believing in a creator......who created mathematics, scientific law, time, space and matter...You know a blue print for life. Instead of saying it came from no where? Is it also respectable to say "pasta monster" like it's some creative meme? Dawkins is a bully and nothing more than that.

Edited January 19, 2014 by TheMarkz0ne

[Hansel 1,511]

I agree with many of his views, whilst others not so much. But then why would anyone agree with another person 100% of the time? At least if you can think for yourself. When I agree with him, yay, when I don't, at least he challenges my perspective and makes me think.

 

I think he's an incredibly intelligent guy either way, and very honest and open about his faults. He's also one of the few srs bsnss types that is willing to, and open about the fact that he can change his mind about things, and I think this is partly why some people see him as a hypocrite.  

He's actually the only vlogger I'm subscribed to on Youtube, and the only non-artist/friend/fandom related person I follow on Tumblr.

 

As for the quote, it's kinda taken out of context, so I'm not sure what he's referring to or talking about, but he does have a point. rape "survivor" isn't (always) the correct term, and people use it when they shouldn't 

The majority of the critique I see on the internet about him is a little ridiculous, and at times completely made up. I kind of wonder if people who say some of the stuff they do about him have even watched his videos.

[Acchan 232]

"Science! it works bitches."

-Richard "Agnostic" Dawkins 

 

That sound respectable to you? Is it also respectable to insult a young girl for believing in a creator......who created mathematics, scientific law, time, space and matter...You know a blue print for life. Instead of saying it came from no where? Is it also respectable to say "pasta monster" like it's some creative meme? Dawkins is a bully and nothing more than that.

Markz, take a deep breath and let it out. It's okay- we get that you are very passionate. Please don't lose your temper. It's not becoming.