Originally posted by humy

Atheism is a religious belief

How so? Obviously it isn't by definition.

I do not fear that idiot,

If he is an 'idiot' then I guess you must be extremely severely mentally retarded. What scientific qualifications have you got that he hasn't?
The kinds of people you keep calling "idiot" are vastly more intelligent rly you have NO such science qualifications nor good understanding of science subjects?

Now you know I did not say anything about Einstein, who we know was not an atheist. However, when Dawkins looks like an idiot and talks like an idiot, then maybe he is an idiot. I can't say for sure that Dawkins is truly an idiot. It is only my opinion. The purpose of these forums is to give our opinions, is it not?

The reason I cut and past and refer to videos on topics is because I know that some people know more about certain topics than any of us on this forum and they can explain it better than I can. So in my attempt to teach you guys the truth I refer to those I believe are more intelligent that we are. To me Dawkins seems to be an example of one that is not that intelligent and says idiotic things and acts diumbfounded at times like in this video.

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Now you know I did not say anything about Einstein, who we know was not an atheist. However, when Dawkins looks like an idiot and talks like an idiot, then maybe he is an idiot. I can't say for sure that Dawkins is truly an idiot. It is only my opinion. The purpose of these forums is to give our opinions, is it not?

The reason I cut and past and refer ...[text shortened]... ed at times like in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

The Instructor

The purpose of these forums is to give our opinions, is it not?

-AND to justify them -which you don't.

Now you know I did not say anything about Einstein,

which is missing my point: why apply one logic to judge Dawkins but a DIFFERENT logic to judge Einstein? Using the same logic, you would arrogantly believe that Einstein is an "idiot" for not believing in your religion.

who we know was not an atheist

I just told you that. I told you he was an AGNOSTIC and he rejected ALL religions that involve a belief in a personal god -that means, this man with vastly greater intellect than you will ever have, clearly rejected YOUR religion which, judging from certain letters he wrote, he would describe as “infantile”. Saying that he was “not an atheist” doesn't change that fact.

in my attempt to teach you guys the truth

WOW you are just so delusional -As if you with your low intelligence can “teach” us with our higher intelligence “the truth” about science which you have no qualifications in and we do and know a lot more about than you do 😛
And it just shows your arrogance for claiming to be the one that knows the "truth" here despite your lack of intelligence and absence of qualifications in this subject area of science that you claim to know the truth in! 😛

I refer to those I believe are more intelligent that we are.

But WE are OBVIOUSLY more intelligent than YOU are! WE are better qualified in science and know a hell a lot more about it than you will ever do and are certainly more intelligent than the creators of stupid creationist propaganda videos and creationist propaganda websites.
There are certain people in this forum that are more intelligent than me -but you don't even come close to being one of them.

P.S. I don't look at any propaganda video links you give in your posts -they are all moronic and never worth watching.

Originally posted by humy

The purpose of these forums is to give our opinions, is it not?

-AND to justify them -which you don't.

Now you know I did not say anything about Einstein,

which is missing my point: why apply one logic to judge Dawkins but a DIFFERENT logic to judge Einstein? Using the same logic, you would arrogantly believe that ...[text shortened]... ganda video links you give in your posts -they are all moronic and never worth watching.

I made the same point about the two level logic he uses, I pointed out several times the same scientific principles are used for medical science, evolution, geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics and so forth.

But he only puts down evolution and geology where it gives different answers to the bible fairy tale.

I asked him several times why the same scientific process that works for astronomy does not work for evolution. His answer, goddidit.

Originally posted by humy

The purpose of these forums is to give our opinions, is it not?

-AND to justify them -which you don't.

Now you know I did not say anything about Einstein,

which is missing my point: why apply one logic to judge Dawkins but a DIFFERENT logic to judge Einstein? Using the same logic, you would arrogantly believe that ganda video links you give in your posts -they are all moronic and never worth watching.

Well, according to you evilutionists, intelligence is not needed to do all manner of wonders in nature lke turning a tadpole into a handsome prince, because it can easily happens by "evilution" and no intelligence is allowed in that process.

Apparently it never crossed your mind that I might be one of those people on this forum that is more intelligent than you. You seem content to remain in your ignorance, well, so be it.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, according to you evilutionists, intelligence is not needed to do all manner of wonders in nature lke turning a tadpole into a handsome prince, because it can easily happens by "evilution" and no intelligence is allowed in that process.

Apparently it never crossed your mind that I might be one of those people on this forum that is more intelligent than you. You seem content to remain in your ignorance, well, so be it.

The Instructor

Apparently it never crossed your mind that I might be one of those people on this forum that is more intelligent than you.

That is because, compared to me, judging from your unintelligent posts, you are certainly not.
Plus I have various science qualifications so I am actually qualified to explain some science here -apart from Bible reading, what are your qualifications?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, according to you evilutionists, intelligence is not needed to do all manner of wonders in nature lke turning a tadpole into a handsome prince, because it can easily happens by "evilution" and no intelligence is allowed in that process.

Apparently it never crossed your mind that I might be one of those people on this forum that is more intelligent than you. You seem content to remain in your ignorance, well, so be it.

The Instructor

Your use of english belies your intelligence. "I might be one of those people on this forum that is more intelligent than you''. Well that sounds like a sound bite from someone you probably adore, GW Bush. I think you misunderestimate us.

Originally posted by humy

Apparently it never crossed your mind that I might be one of those people on this forum that is more intelligent than you.

That is because, compared to me, judging from your unintelligent posts, you are certainly not.
Plus I have various science qualifications so I am actually qualified to explain some science here -apart from Bible reading, what are your qualifications?

You could be one of those highly educated fools. Or one educated beyond your average intelligence.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
Your use of english belies your intelligence. "I might be one of those people on this forum that is more intelligent than you''. Well that sounds like a sound bite from someone you probably adore, GW Bush. I think you misunderestimate us.

I am intelligent enough to find Youtube videos to prove my points. Try this one:

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am intelligent enough to find Youtube videos to prove my points. Try this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s9oKio-fEU

The Instructor

I am intelligent enough to find Youtube videos

This requires NO intelligence.

P.S. I don't look at your creationist videos any more -I have already seen the crap in them.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You could be one of those highly educated fools. Or one educated beyond your average intelligence.

The Instructor

You have no science qualifications. Why is that? incapable of learning something new?

Originally posted by humy
You have no science qualifications. Why is that? incapable of learning something new?

I had planned on becoming an Electrical Engineer and have two years of college education and among other courses took courses in Chemistry and Physics for students of science and enginerring. However, I could not afford to continue and joined the U. S. Army thinking I could use the GI Bill after I got out to continue with that education. However, time and marriage and children changed those plans. So doing electrical work and repairing televisons and other electronic equipment was as close as I ever got to becoming an Electrical Engineer.

So I don't have any real science qualifications that you would recognize, but that does not mean I am a person of low intelligence, because I do not agree with you interpretation of scientific information.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I had planned on becoming an Electrical Engineer and have two years of college education and among other courses took courses in Chemistry and Physics for students of science and enginerring. However, I could not afford to continue and joined the U. S. Army thinking I could use the GI Bill after I got out to continue with that education. However, time and ...[text shortened]... ce, because I do not agree with you interpretation of scientific information.

The Instructor

Poverty is an honorable excuse for leaving higher education. Although my friend Rachel wins the biggest prize. She entered Oxford to study maths, changed course about 12 times and then on whatever course she finished on got a first in her end of year exams. She promptly dropped out and went to Manchester where she studied sociology and is now an academic sociologist. The point I'm making is that the dropout stage was her own call - there are few people who've started a degree at an "Ivy League" university (I'm internationalising an American term here). She's one of the few people I'll actually admit is probably cleverer than me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Now you know I did not say anything about Einstein, who we know was not an atheist. However, when Dawkins looks like an idiot and talks like an idiot, then maybe he is an idiot. I can't say for sure that Dawkins is truly an idiot. It is only my opinion. The purpose of these forums is to give our opinions, is it not?

The reason I cut and past and refer ...[text shortened]... ed at times like in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

The Instructor

It just goes with your MO. Find OTHER people's work and publish it here as if it were real. Just like you read other people's work, the man made bible, and are totally deluded into believing it was inspired by a god.

I try to find ideas in my own head which I do every day, for a living and here in my vain attempt to show you how deluded you are in thinking the Earth 6K years old.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It just goes with your MO. Find OTHER people's work and publish it here as if it were real. Just like you read other people's work, the man made bible, and are totally deluded into believing it was inspired by a god.

I try to find ideas in my own head which I do every day, for a living and here in my vain attempt to show you how deluded you are in thinking the Earth 6K years old.

What good will it do me to think that the world is 14 or 15 billion years old and die in my sins and spend eternity in hellfire, when I could believe what the Holy Bible says and be cleased of my sins and be resurrected at judgment day to everlasting life?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
What good will it do me to think that the world is 14 or 15 billion years old and die in my sins and spend eternity in hellfire, when I could believe what the Holy Bible says and be cleased of my sins and be resurrected at judgment day to everlasting life?

The Instructor

I was brought up with Christianity, I do not remember "I believe in the literal truth of the Book of Genesis" to be part of the creed. Not believing the literal truth of the Old Testament is not going to imperil anyone's soul - assuming that that is the only fault. But really this is a question for the Spirituality Forum.