Atheists please answer this

[Joe K.]

Your point is standing on something very much not true then. The very fact that there is no evidence of evolution being guided by a sapient life form shows there is no evidence of evolution being guided at all. That means it is solely up to natural processes (which is what we observe).



Your argument as compelling or non-compelling as it may be wouldn't matter. There is no evidence a God exists. On the other hand there is conclusive evidence that evolution exists. Whether or not you accept that is entirely up to you, but evolution will continue to exist regardless.



Unlike your claim above, I can provide evidence for mine. All you have to do is ask (provided you are asking with the intent of being influence by evidence and not just making me do work out of spite).



We have the following knowns:

* Once all cells in your body are dead, that's it, you're dead for good.
* There is zodiac related religion that precedes Christianity where a Jesus-like figurehead has 12 disciples, performs miracles, resurrects from the dead, etc. That casts doubt on whether Jesus was even a real person or just a rip-off story.

We also have an interesting combination of knowns and scientific discovery.

* The Septuagint discussed the life of Jesus hundreds of years before he was born. That either means someone legitimately saw the future -OR- Jesus was just a story (as proto-religion suggests and the fact that humans cannot demonstrate any ability to see the future).
* The discovery of eigenstates in QM shows that everything exists as a superposition for a brief moment and then collapses into the most probable outcome. That would suggest that the future doesn't exist until the moment the most recent set of superpositions collapses into the most probable next moment. Of course not all superpositions collapse at the same time and each can affect the highest probable outcome of the rest... not to mention, there is only superposition of whatever a "next" moment may be... not anything beyond. With all these dynamics, it strongly suggests that if you could see into the future it would be a garble of superpositions for a "next" moment and nothing beyond... which would invalidate the Septuagint as anything more than a story and of course Jesus in turn.

That's a problem I have had with these debates in the past. They quickly expand into book length exercises that require a vast amount of time. But, I'll have a go for a while yet.
The very fact that there is no evidence of evolution being guided by a sapient life form shows there is no evidence of evolution being guided at all. That means it is solely up to natural processes (which is what we observe).

Your argument as compelling or non-compelling as it may be wouldn't matter. There is no evidence a God exists. On the other hand there is conclusive evidence that evolution exists. Whether or not you accept that is entirely up to you, but evolution will continue to exist regardless.

You can say evolution is a naturalistic process, but you cannot PROVE there is no God behind it. What if evolution is a fact, but God started it and God guides it and is guiding it towards some unknown end? We have left the laboratory now.

Unlike your claim above, I can provide evidence for mine. All you have to do is ask (provided you are asking with the intent of being influence by evidence and not just making me do work out of spite).

You can provide evidence for evolution, but you can't prove there is nothing behind evolution. You provide evidence for the process, but not for what started it and where it might be going.

We have the following knowns:

* Once all cells in your body are dead, that's it, you're dead for good.

That is not a scientifically proven fact. How we perceive, feel, think is still a mysterious process. Those who claim it is purely material do so because that is what they want to believe, there is as yet no material explanation. You THINK that the soul is only chemicals etc. and dies with the body but you don't KNOW it and can't PROVE it.

* There is zodiac related religion that precedes Christianity where a Jesus-like figurehead has 12 disciples, performs miracles, resurrects from the dead, etc. That casts doubt on whether Jesus was even a real person or just a rip-off story.

Christianity spread with astonishing speed and was very successful, so many tried to copy it and imitate it. There is no factual or historical evidence for this claim of yours.

We also have an interesting combination of knowns and scientific discovery.

* The Septuagint discussed the life of Jesus hundreds of years before he was born. That either means someone legitimately saw the future -OR- Jesus was just a story (as proto-religion suggests and the fact that humans cannot demonstrate any ability to see the future).

You don't know what the Septuagint is. It is only a Greek translation of the Old Testament and does not have any New Testament stories about Jesus at all.

* The discovery of eigenstates in QM shows that everything exists as a superposition for a brief moment and then collapses into the most probable outcome. That would suggest that the future doesn't exist until the moment the most recent set of superpositions collapses into the most probable next moment. Of course not all superpositions collapse at the same time and each can affect the highest probable outcome of the rest... not to mention, there is only superposition of whatever a "next" moment may be... not anything beyond. With all these dynamics, it strongly suggests that if you could see into the future it would be a garble of superpositions for a "next" moment and nothing beyond... which would invalidate the Septuagint as anything more than a story and of course Jesus in turn.

That sounds very impressive to some, but the word suggests shows you are speculating.

 

[Joe K.]

fallacious logic. you are implying that god exists but is not provable at this time or can't be proven because we are unable. you would even have to first define 'god' in the first place.

you do not know that god exists in the first place. it's just a belief.

I did refer to the limitations of proof. Prove to me that the music of Mozart is better than the music of Elvis. Proof is very weak and limited as the human mind is very weak and limitied.

I do know God exists, but it is a manner of knowing that is alien to you. There are different levels and dimensions of knowledge and so different ways of knowing as well.

Did you ever know someone was lying based on a sure conviction and past experience, but without tangible evidence to make an iron clad case?

 

[Joe K.]

Valhalla.

Have you ever thought of going into comedy?

 

[keith1]

Joe K:
1. You have no idea of what the universe was like at the beginning.
--Keith1: Because of evidence (and not just blind faith), those dynamics are becoming clearer as we speak--thanks to Science.

2. You fail to distinguish between the physical creation and the creator. If the Creator existed before the physical creation, then he would not be dependent on it in any way.
--"Before" is a term encompassed within the physical creation. (There is some cursory exploration of an anomaly called "Dark Flow", which may have, by its observed dynamics, superseded the "Inflationary Period", following the initial Big Bang).

Physical things need a beginning, but God is spirit and hence outside of all of your materialistic conceptions.
--There is no evidence of ANY of this sentence being a valid statement.

 

[Joe K.]

Originally Posted by Joe K.
My God was nailed to a cross

Re. Atheists please answer this.

When a statement like this is made, it becomes a surety to confound anyone, and is probably why the atheist population has exploded:

There are many reasons for the increase of atheism.

Because it contains nothing which can be attached to, which is moral when examined, and is made with a total vacuum of historical back-up. Worse, it is bordering on manifest falsehood by virtue of its gross omissions: what is unique of one Jew among a million being killed by Rome - all of whom had greater faith than all christians combined?

Paul says in I Corinthians that the Christian message is foolishness to the natural mind. God, dying on the cross??? It cannot be understood or comprehended by reason alone, it is only understood when God gives understanding.

What was unique about one Jew? What do you know about Christ, his life and work?

I say greater faith because of the time period of a peoples' belief and what they had to endure to uphold it. I say false becuase it omits the others killed in the very same space time and by the very same Romans and for the very same reason: Heresy. I say immoral because it does not honor those who solely battled Rome's flaunting of a peoples' right to have a belief and thereby one group of humanity alone and bravely protected this right for humanity as no other.

The Jews have survived because God has kept them for his purposes. Don't forget they turned against him during the Exodus and many times thereafter, yet he still stayed with them.

Many others were killed by the Romans, but NOT because they offended the Pharisees by claiming to be the Son of God and by exposing the falsehood of their teaching.

The Jews battles Rome and were crushed, defeated, destroyed, and enslaved. If they had obeyed the commandment of Jesus to cooperate with the Romans the state of Israel would have lasted much longer.

It does not matter that a Christian may say whatever they like of their belief - they are still obligated to mention how a million also sacrificed their lives - its omission is a lie by omission however one moulds it - and anything which is even minutely untrue or lacking of truth cannot be enshrined as truth or good or Godly.

Good argument, if Jesus was only one more man of many - but if he was more than a man, then his death is different.

And how does a Christian in Europe know a resurrection occured from so afar and when it contradicts both what the Jews and Arab people saw?

We know it as it is revealed to us by divine illumination.

It contradicts nothing, no Jews or Arabs saw Jesus not rising from the dead and decaying in the tomb.

- and what constitutes a resurrection - how many hours?

We don't know the time.

Its one big mystery how this was ever acceted,

If it is human invention, it is a mystery. If God was behind it, it is not a mystery.

and one religious group cannot speak in the same language of another: its like a zebra talking to a fish, and in a sense an even greater empass than two different species. Test this with a Christian and a Muslim - can they ever convince each other - even when talking of the same event in the same space-time?

Can a Darwinist convince a Moslem? No? Then Darwinism is false?

Christians and Moslems are not talking about the same person or the same event. Moslems believe Jesus was only a man and that he was not crucified at all.

 

[Joe K.]

Originally Posted by Joe K.
Let's say there is someone who makes the following argument:

Darwinism is a scientific fact. We know that it works, and how it works, and we know that it is the explanation for life on earth as we know it - but Darwinism works as it does because God is guiding it.

This is not my view, I don't believe in evolution, but my question is:

By what scientific evidence (not arguments or logic but scientific evidence) can you prove this person wrong?

Your disbelief in god is purely subjective, based on your own personal needs. Atheism is wish fulfilment.

Believing in a god is an unfalsifiable claim, so no. Many priests and bishops say just this. (they accept evolution).
Atheism is NOT based on my own personal needs. I have weighed the evidence and found no significant evidence to prove any god exists so I decline to accept any god, the possibility is there, atheism is NOT an assertion.

"There is no God" is also unfalsifiable.

Many theists do accept evolution.

You weighed the evidence but interpreted it by other criteria than pure disinterested objectivity.

if you say "I believe there is no God" you state a fact about yourself. If you say "There is no God" you make an unprovable assertion.

 

[Joe K.]

Religion makes people stupid. I can come to no other conclusion. Their worship of belief as a virtue makes them believe truly stupid things. I'm only thankful that with access to nuclear weapons, they will someday purge the planet of themselves. It's just too bad so many perfectly good people will die with them.

Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus were stupid? All of the founding giants of modern science approached the universe in the belief that a rational God had made it. This is why modern science emerged out of Christian Europe and nowehere else.

You can call Bach stupid if you like, or call me stupid if you want to claim Bach lived before Darwin and didn't know any better.

We do not worship belief as a virtue, there are right and wrong beliefs. Belief in and of itself is not a good.

And who invented nuclear weapons? Thanks, scientists. It is you secularists with your blind devotion to science that have brought this catastrophe on the world.

If you don't like religious people with nuclear weapons, why not advocate a swift and devastating strike on Iran?

 

[Joe K.]

copycat


Theists are stupid.

You can't provide empirical evidence showing all theists are stupid.

What about the atheists by the way? Pol Pot? Marx? Lenin? Stalin? Just eliminate private property and then we'll have a paradise!!! Of course, first we have to eliminate the millions of vermin and insects who don't want to give up their private property and religion and sokeep us from bringing real happiness to mankind.

Atheists have been among the most visious and brutal killers inhistory - and why not, if people are only matter and there is nodivine law?

Do you define "stupid' as "looking at life differently than I do"?

People who see things differently from you are stupid and of course narrow minded too, right?

 

[Joe K.]

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
So YOU believe all theists are stupid?

jan.

Most of them, especially the conservative ones.

So, most of them, not all. We are making some progress.

 

[NMSquirrel]

There are many reasons for the increase of atheism.

i vote that atheism is rooted by those who cannot come to terms with their own sin nature.

Paul says in I Corinthians that the Christian message is foolishness to the natural mind. God, dying on the cross??? It cannot be understood or comprehended by reason alone, it is only understood when God gives understanding.

nice verse..also
2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

Good argument, if Jesus was only one more man of many - but if he was more than a man, then his death is different.

if jesus was a compilation of many other prophets during that time,wouldn't jesus being god make more sense?

We know it as it is revealed to us by divine illumination.

i suppose it qualifies..but how bout..god took the veil away from us so we could see..

Christians and Moslems are not talking about the same person or the same event. Moslems believe Jesus was only a man and that he was not crucified at all.

i have heard muslims view jesus as just a prophet,like muhammed..
i haven't heard how they view mohammeds divinity..
i haven't heard 'same event' or 'not crucified'..

 

[Joe K.]

Originally Posted by Joe K.
First point, Darwinism is as you point out a very limited explanation that leaves a lot unanswered.

depends on how you look at it - it doesnt account for things outside of the scope of the theory - like electromagnetism, or gravity for example - but within the scope of what it sets out to explain it is very comprehensive.

It doesn't account for the origins of the cosmos or of life itself. True, it doesn't claim to, so it is limited and leaves a lot unanswered, as I said.

Second point, Occam's razor is not a scientific proof.

Correct, but it is part of the methodology of science, without it science is prone to become pseudo-science.
That which is not required in order to explain something can be safely excluded until such a time when the explanatory or predictive capacity of a theory cannot progress without its inclusion.
So far god is not needed to explain the process of evolution, or any other natural process.
Now whether this is adequate justification for unbeleif is another matter - for some people like Richard Dawkins it is - but there are plenty of scientists who have no problem in reconciling beleif in a personal god with a determination that the theory of evolution is correct.

It is a PART of the methodology, not the whole. It is a limited guide, not an infallible law. Did Einstein use it to discover the theory of relativity?

I did not say God was needed, I said there was no proof to rule him out.

Yes, many theists do believe in evolution. And their belief in God explains the origins of life and of the cosmos as well.

Also, saying that it might have occurred without a guiding hand does not prove there was no such hand.

quite right - an absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence.
However, the universe that we observe today - one which appears to operate completely autonomously from any invisible guiding hand, on (mostly / superficially) simple rules - does stand at odds with the god or gods described in the various holy books of the world - namely a god who regularly manifests itself or interfers, performs miracles, takes a personal role in daily events etc.

The bible teaches that Christ sustains all things by the word of his power. It says in Psalms that God makes the sun to shine, the grass to grow, he sends clouds and wind - the entire cosmos is sustained and governed by God. That he is not immediately visible does not contradict the Christian bible at all.

He does intervene and interfere every day, but in certain ways and times not on display for those who choose not to see. God allows you your unbelief.

Either it is a shocking co-incidence that these various manfestations of the work of your god of choice have decreased over the last 200-or-so years in direct corelation to the rate at which we have developed naturalistic explanations to how things operate, or god just happens to have chosen this exact time to hit the autopilot button on the universe, nipped off for a little break and will be right back in her firery chariot to get back to the job of dragging the sun across the sky every day some time in the next century or so.
So the point as to whether god takes a personal involvement in the running of the universe is a moot one - we cant detect it, we cant measure it - so to all intents and purposes it isnt there in any real sense.
Furthermore, you can replace the word "god" in the "you cant prove that evolution is not guided by god" sentence, by any deity or supernatural entity you like (or more probably quite a few that you don't like), and there's no genuinely demonstrable reason why your god is a better candidate than anyone elses. But ulitmately it gets us nowhere as the point isnt testable.

The period of great and obvious miracles ceased a long time before the age of science, withion the first generation after Christ. But God does still act and work in the world today and does work miracles on an individual if not on a public and spectacular basis.

Right, the point isn't testable. It is a mistake though to think that only that which is testable is real, that nothing can exist beyonbd the bounds you have laid down.

If there were a god, don't you think it would be surprising if he conformed exactly to your expectations and did nothing beyond your comprehension? That would make you like God.

There are no plausible explanations for the origin of life from matter, only guesses and speculations, certainly not evidence.

actually there is some pretty good work being done

there's a lovely simple demo here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

All highly speculative and very far from empirical.

 

[Joe K.]

Joe K:
1. You have no idea of what the universe was like at the beginning.
--Keith1: Because of evidence (and not just blind faith), those dynamics are becoming clearer as we speak--thanks to Science.

The first beginnings of the cosmos and of the earth and of life are still completely shrouded in mystery, beyond the reach of experiment and controlled analysis.

2. You fail to distinguish between the physical creation and the creator. If the Creator existed before the physical creation, then he would not be dependent on it in any way.
--"Before" is a term encompassed within the physical creation. (There is some cursory exploration of an anomaly called "Dark Flow", which may have, by its observed dynamics, superseded the "Inflationary Period", following the initial Big Bang).

3. Physical things need a beginning, but God is spirit and hence outside of all of your materialistic conceptions.
--There is no evidence of ANY of this sentence being a valid statement.

1. The first beginnings of the cosmos and of the earth and of life are still completely shrouded in mystery, beyond the reach of experiment and controlled analysis.
2. You respond with speculations, not facts or evidence.
3. There is no evidence of it being invalid either.

All of life and reality is not comfortably contained within the scure and cozy boundaries of what you like to call "evidence."

 

[CptBork]

Some say evolution is good evidence for the existence of Thor. The strong wear horns on their helmets and go to Valhalla, the weak get plundered and then DIE... Muahahahaha

One can also make the argument that Charles Darwin created the universe, and then invented evolution as a sneaky red herring to lead us off his scent. My point is that this thread is pointless. Let's all argue about whether grass might really be pink instead, you can't disprove that one either.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

That's a problem I have had with these debates in the past. They quickly expand into book length exercises that require a vast amount of time. But, I'll have a go for a while yet.

That they do.

You can say evolution is a naturalistic process, but you cannot PROVE there is no God behind it.

Explicitly defined "God" and what you mean by there being "no God behind it" and I'll probably be able to demonstrate you as being incorrect.

What if evolution is a fact,

It is and there is nothing you or I can do to change that.

but God started it

It is presently unknown how life began. There are alot of good theories; however, because the answer is unknown doesn't mean it's a void to be filled by "God did it" (or any other fantasy filling the gap).

...and God guides it and is guiding it towards some unknown end?

Evolution isn't guided so this scenario doesn't apply.

You can provide evidence for evolution, but you can't prove there is nothing behind evolution. You provide evidence for the process, but not for what started it and where it might be going.

Only partially true. Evolution is a process built into reality. It isn't "started". Life is what gets "started". Excactly how that happened on Earth isn't known. Additionally, evolution doesn't "go" somewhere. It's continual adaptaton and thats it.

That is not a scientifically proven fact. How we perceive, feel, think is still a mysterious process. Those who claim it is purely material do so because that is what they want to believe, there is as yet no material explanation.

That is not true. If I inject you with anesthetic, your concsiousness will cease. If I damage part of your brain, your consciousness will be hindered. If you go to sleep, your consciousness will be turned off (except when dreaming of course). Those simple observations show consciousness to be a result of your brain operating; however, here is a more detailed look at consciousness from a neuroscience perspective:

http://discovermagazine.com/video/u...re-is-consciousness/?searchterm=consciousness

You THINK that the soul is only chemicals etc. and dies with the body but you don't KNOW it and can't PROVE it.

That statement was incorrect across a few different areas. Firstly, there's no soul that is made up of chemicals or dies with the body. There's simply no soul. By removing parts of your brain, I can eliminate your memories, your identity, your emotions, your senses, your preferences, your dislikes, etc. So yes, I just did prove it.

Christianity spread with astonishing speed and was very successful, so many tried to copy it and imitate it. There is no factual or historical evidence for this claim of yours.

I'll take you through the evidence step by step. First is the absence of evidence a real Jesus. The Romans had real historians during the time period of "Jesus' life". Feel free to find a single historical document concerning Jesus. You wont find any despite that he would have been the most historically interesting thing at the time (had he really existed). Go ahead take a look. Once you've seen the sheer absence of Jesus, we'll proceed to step two.

You don't know what the Septuagint is. It is only a Greek translation of the Old Testament and does not have any New Testament stories about Jesus at all.

That would be incorrect. See the section titled "Old Testament" as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus

That sounds very impressive to some, but the word suggests shows you are speculating.

That is correct; however, it is a speculation based on real science.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So, most of them, not all. We are making some progress.

Can you explain this response please?

jan.

 

[M00se1989]

Let's say there is someone who makes the following argument:

Darwinism is a scientific fact. We know that it works, and how it works, and we know that it is the explanation for life on earth as we know it - but Darwinism works as it does because God is guiding it.

This is not my view, I don't believe in evolution, but my question is:

By what scientific evidence (not arguments or logic but scientific evidence) can you prove this person wrong?

Your disbelief in god is purely subjective, based on your own personal needs. Atheism is wish fulfilment.

who's god? is he alive. I don't see him anywhere around here.

How could god possibly guide us if he gave us free will. or maybe people of this time live for the best as they do in every time.

I will use the word ETYMOLOGY as a reference. people change their accents and the uses of words as time goes on. It is the history of words of which studied closely will allow us to see an evolution of words and thought processes?

"Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species. Ultimately, life is descended from a common ancestry through a long series of these speciation events, stretching back in a (tree of life) that has grown over the 3.5 billion years of life on Earth.[2][3][4][5] This is visible in anatomical, genetic and other likenesses between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. To distinguish from other uses of the word evolution, it is sometimes termed biological evolution, genetic evolution or organic evolution.[6][7]"(wiki)

oh the lies I hear(=: do you not think that some of us do not think alike in this world?

"skew the whole and blaspheme the rest."

"don't touch!- There are terrible people who instead of solving a problem, bungle it and and make it more difficult for all who come after. (Whoever can't hit the nail on the head should, please, not hit at all)(1)"(neitzsche)

(1)(this is a logical fallacy as one who can't hit the nail would not hit the nail)

 

[Joe K.]

Joe K:
1. You have no idea of what the universe was like at the beginning.
--Keith1: Because of evidence (and not just blind faith), those dynamics are becoming clearer as we speak--thanks to Science.

2. You fail to distinguish between the physical creation and the creator. If the Creator existed before the physical creation, then he would not be dependent on it in any way.
--"Before" is a term encompassed within the physical creation. (There is some cursory exploration of an anomaly called "Dark Flow", which may have, by its observed dynamics, superseded the "Inflationary Period", following the initial Big Bang).

Physical things need a beginning, but God is spirit and hence outside of all of your materialistic conceptions.
--There is no evidence of ANY of this sentence being a valid statement.

1. Science is still speculating, guessing, about the origins. A big bang? What was it that exploded? And how did it explode into law and order? And how can inert matter give rise to life. Mysteries, mysteries . . . why is it so hard for you to admit that there are dimensions to reality that cannot be confined to a laboratory?

2. Repeat, the Creators is different from the creation.

3. There is no evidence it is valid? Define "evidence" - that which is agreeable to you?

And, there is no evidence that it is not valid. You arbitrarily declare things to be valid or invalid according to your personal taste.

 

[Joe K.]

i vote that atheism is rooted by those who cannot come to terms with their own sin nature.

nice verse..also
2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.


if jesus was a compilation of many other prophets during that time,wouldn't jesus being god make more sense?


i suppose it qualifies..but how bout..god took the veil away from us so we could see..




i have heard muslims view jesus as just a prophet,like muhammed..
i haven't heard how they view mohammeds divinity..
i haven't heard 'same event' or 'not crucified'..

Yes, sin is a hidden factor that confuses all of their logic, science, and evidence.

About Corinthians, we too often allow the atheists to set the parameters of the debate and then try to meet them on THEIR terms - when there is an entire dimension of spirituality that is closed to them.

Ultimate reality is revealed to us in Christ, God in human form.

About Islam, they believe Jesus and Mohammed were both prophets, both men only.

They teach that Jesus did not die on the cross, but God deceived his enemies and gave them a substitute that looked like Jesus.

 

[Joe K.]

Some say evolution is good evidence for the existence of Thor. The strong wear horns on their helmets and go to Valhalla, the weak get plundered and then DIE... Muahahahaha

One can also make the argument that Charles Darwin created the universe, and then invented evolution as a sneaky red herring to lead us off his scent. My point is that this thread is pointless. Let's all argue about whether grass might really be pink instead, you can't disprove that one either.

No, the thread is not pointless. The point, which no one has yet addressed adequately, is this.

If someone says "Evolution is a fact but it works as it does because God started it and God guides it," the atheists have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to refute them

Their writing God out of the picture is based solely on other considerations that have nothing to do with evidence or plain logic.

 

[Joe K.]

I wrote

Originally Posted by Joe K.
So, most of them, not all. We are making some progress.

Jan asked,

Can you explain this response please?

jan.

So here is the exchange from pages 8-9.

Spidergoat
Religion makes people stupid. I can come to no other conclusion. Their worship of belief as a virtue makes them believe truly stupid things. I'm only thankful that with access to nuclear weapons, they will someday purge the planet of themselves. It's just too bad so many perfectly good people will die with them.

Jan

Do you believe all people who adhere to religion are stupid, or just some?

Spidergoat
It's just a general rule.

Spidergoat repeats
Theists are stupid.

Jan
So YOU believe all theists are stupid?

Spidergoat
Most of them, especially the conservative ones.

My comment was that Spidergoat has progressed from "Theists" meaning "all theists without exception" to "Most theists."