The Trouble with Atheism!

Jesus (lol again) stop calling him Darkins! Who the **** is Darkwins?!

maybe you should stop talking?

lol mmmm no

would u want to see him against someone who isnt just going to be quite and knows nothing about religion. we had david quinn but you people thought he was 2 loud for the distingished debater so im wondering would you not want to see him going against someone high in the church?

Ugh. Comments like that betray a serious misunderstanding of the way the term "theory" is used in scientific discourse. In science, facts must be explained with reference to other facts. These larger explanatory models are known as "theories". Theories make prediction which can, in principle, be tested. The phrase "The theory of evolution" does not in the least suggest that evolution is not a fact. One can speak of "the germ theory of disease" or "the theory of gravitation" without casting any doubt upon disease or gravity as facts of nature. Evolution is a fact.

Imagine your potential for embarrasment if your religious faith rested upon the presumption that the sun was not a star at all. Imagine all you Christian's, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. spending millions of euro's every year to battle the godless astronomers and astrophysicists over their crazy and unfounded notion that the sun is a star. Imagine all you people working passionatley to undermine the teaching that the sun is a star, and to have your unfounded notions of the sun taught to all school children. This is exactly the situation we are in now with evolution and there's a damn sight more evidence in favour of evolution then there is that the sun is burning ball of hydrogen and helium.

His comments about Islam were completely accurate.

Please do not talk about genetics. You know nothing.

The pope, as well as the last one, openly said that all gays will burn in hell.



Just answer me these questions:

1- Why do you believe in God?
2- Do you believe in the virgin birth story? (Do you believe Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus)
3- Do you believe in the Assumption of Mary?

What trouble should there be with Atheists? Most of the times the ones who always make and made trouble are the relgious people of ALL religions. Just look to Northern Ireland, Israel and to the terrorists who use the Islam for their terror. No matter which religion, it is and was always used for war, tortures, witch-hunts, terror etc.

the last pope nor this one have said that will burn inhell, and just to clear up the fact it is not the church nor God who sends peopkle to hell they send temselves.

i believe in god because iv though a experience i had when i was younger one that the doctors, fire bargaid, police said should have killed me and my 3 friends but for some reason a car spinng out of control at 70 mph, crashing down a 6 ft drop into a field and spinning over 5 times flatning the roof on top of us left only cuts and bruses. that amound other countless unexplned things in the world.

yes i believe in the virgin birth why since the the word bethulah means young women in greek?? simple because the odd is not mentioned one the in the old testement when it is refering to a young women, the fact that in hebew the word is accepted as meaning virgin, also in galations r sumthing like that says that jesus was sent a women untounched by man as well as countless other books in the bible that refer to the virigin birth.

the 3rd is a funny one and i dont believe it is mentioned in the bible but i believe the line is that not only does she appear in the last book with 12 starts uopon her head and all that but jesus sais to peter you are the rock on which i build my church, whater u loose in heaven will be lossed on earth wat ever you bound on earth will be bound in heaven r to that extent, meaning the Pope has the power to comment on religious matters and this was one made very early on in the church and remained

What is your point here? What does it matter if he takes part in a debate or not. If you had read The God Delusion you'd know that he doesn't like the debating process as it's not conducive to getting to the truth. He's also a self-confessed terrible debater. The fact is he's far too polite, respectful and quiet to do well in debates, especially when debating loud, crass and ignorant religious folk. He'd never be beaten intellectually because he can certainly be "beaten" by loud, ignorant fools like David Quinn who just shout over him.

Besides, Prof. D-A-W-K-I-N-S has debated many of the most well known and powerful people in the Christian religion. One of his best friends is the Bishop of Oxford. You'd have seen in The Root of All Evil? he and the wonderful and sensible bishop having a proper discussion. He also invited the chief Rabbi and Archbishop of Cantebury onto the show but they both declined. He also had a nice heated debate with Pastor Ted Haggard, the former head of the US evangelical society, which is all the sweeter to watch after his oh so wonderful fall from grace. As I said he has debated, and destroyed, many of the top brass within the Christian religion. Go on the internet and search them out.

polite, respectful im afriad his 5 or 6 minutes on the panel did not show that side of him. ok so why can he not handel and controlled debate if he has the answers to the questions? something like a chapter to chapter debate of his book? i think that would be quite interesting!

as for ted haggart lol do u really want to use him as an example i wouldnt lol! take on the more educated men in the chruch someone like a cardenal in the running for the next pope lol, there are also many others he could take on, him and Ian Pasiley would be great lol! that id pay to see! tho i dnt know which id like to win! i wonder how much he would charge to come to a university debate?? anyway it would probs have to be a live debate to appese both sides

Oh I see. How silly of me not to know that. And they definitely have both made those comments. Pope John Paul II said that all gay people will burn in hell as a Gay Pride Parade was taking place in Rome. Fact.

Big deal, you got lucky, simple as that. Ever heard of Richard Hammond? Clearly God doesn't give a **** then about all those people who die every year in road accidents. Personal experience is by far the weakest argument for God's existence. Richard Dawkins brilliant tears that reason for believing in god to shreds in TGD.

I don't know about anybody else but I couldn't make sense of that. I think you're saying you do believe the story even though you know it only came about through a mis-translation from the Hebrew word for "young woman" into the Greek word for "virgin". Nowhere in the bible does it make any mention of Mary being a virgin mother. If you do believe even though you know where the fallacy came from then you've shown yourself to be delusional in the extreme. In fact that's so delusional that people have been committed for far less.

Wrong. There is absolutely no mention of Mary's death in the bible. The story goes that Mary was so holy that she never actually died, rather when her life came to a natural end she ascended bodily into heaven. Now this story, surprise surprise, was completely made up. Invented six centuries after the time of Jesus and passed down from generation to generation until eventually in 1952 Pope Pious XII declared that it just had to be true and decreed that all Catholic MUST believe the story. All he did was lock himself away in a room and think his own private thoughts, and he convinced himself, no doubt on many tortuously theological grounds, that it simply had to be true. The story was as true then as the day it was made up but did that stop the pope and catholics from believing it? Of course not. The Catholic religion is so shamelessly made up, and not mention stolen from just about every prior piece of mythology.

He's already done that. And how was he impolite and disrespectful on The Panel. He wasn't even part of a debate and you do realise that was a comedy show?

Ted Haggard was the leader of a congregation of more then 130 million Americans and had weekly meetings with the President of the United States. He was a major power in the christian religion.

**** sake, did you read what I just wrote. He has debated those sort of people you mentioned, and destroyed them in the debate. They are not difficult to find if you search the internet. He himself sought out a debate with the major religious players such as The Chief Rabbi and the Archbishop of Cantebury. Both, probably wisely, declined. Get over this whole debate thing. What you are writing is flat out false, and meaningless anyway.

i think i may start a thread called


'the trouble with Cuchulainn'