14th September 2011

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, and therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.”

Charles Darwin1809 – 1882

19 Responses to “14th September 2011”

  1. captainzero Says:

    There are still those ignorant or malicious few that claim Darwin had a deathbed conversion. It’s annoying, but telling, how the godheads try to claim the first rate intellects. They still try it with Einstein, too.

    Smells like insecurity, doesn’t it?

    As to Mr. Darwin’s point, if one accepts evolution as the driver of the complexity of life on earth, then one has no choice but to toss out the bible as any kind of a literal history. Moreover, the foundation itself, special creation, is effectively and thoroughly toppled by knowledge of common descent.

  2. silimin Says:

    In that sense Charles Darwin is right. But nevertheless evolution can’t refute the real God.

  3. R J Says:

    capt Z………………..

    of cource you’re right. darwin WAS first rate……and so…….

    he had no other choice but to dismiss the bible, and all the

    contradictory myths surrounding jesus.

    einstein would smile if could hear the many claims

    that have described him as ” religious .”

    he WOULD use the terms “religion” and “god”,

    but generally as a convenience , and really

    only after some careful qualifying. he sort of

    loosely subscribed to a sort of

    “clock-maker” viewpoint. he once made a

    statement that if there WERE a god

    he (einstein) would like to ask him WHY he

    created the universe. i think his words were,

    “i would like to know his THOUGHTS……….

    everything else is simply details.”

    he also completely rejected the idea of a

    “personal god ” ,

    who involved himself in human affairs

    and yet, years after his death, there are still

    mis-guided attempts to portray him as religious.

    just plain hog-wash.

  4. Dan Says:

    Just out of curiosity, are you still too cowardly to tell us which god your referring to?

  5. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    “silimin Says: …evolution can’t refute the real God.”

    For all of what the blindly faithful describe as god, for everything proclaimed of god, by the religious, it all points to one thing:

    Evolution is god, god is evolution.

    There is no personification of evolution, they is no entity, no diety god. There is only evolution.

    So as far refuting the real god evolutiion is all that god could ever be. God is something the scientificallly illiterate call evolution.

  6. electrabotanical Says:

    People also like to point out that Mark Twain occasionally attended church services. They claim he was therefore a believer. But Twain was there in a social capacity, not a spiritual one. Big difference.!

  7. archaeopteryx Says:

    Evolution certainly refutes a god that is supposed to care for each member of its creation. It doesn’t, I think, rule out a god that set things up and then watches living beings suffer and struggle. But why would anyone worship such an entity?

  8. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Arch it is a classic question: Why?

    In keeping with my previous comment about god being evolution and R j’s and C aptain’s comments about Einstein’s appreciation of the nature of the universe, I think you have identified the grand religious error: Worship.

    We would never “worship” the universe, or evolution, or anything scientific. Instead we’d appreciate, be amazed, moved, and otherwise emotionally affected.

    Religious nut bags mistakenly use the word worship because they have personified evolution, the universe, all that there is.

    Humans has an odd tendency to personify things that are not people. We call ships “her”, we speak of our dogs personality (why not dogonality), we might label a Corvette as macho, et cetera. It is absurd but we do it almost entirely involutarily.

    I think if people can appreciate reality as it actually is they will be athiests. If they lack that capacity they will be religionists.

  9. CaptainZero Says:

    Sillyman is actually correct – Evolution by itself does NOT disprove the existence of a god. But it DOES disprove the existence of the Abrahamic one and it DOES disprove the silly biblical creation myth. You cannot disprove the existence of all gods in the same way you can’t disprove the existence of unicorns. Even invisible pink ones. :^)>

  10. n0m0l0s Says:

    There will be a missing link not connecting creation with a creator, this being deliberately denied by atheists. Why do they deny this factor. Its because its the only way to truth. Atheists will always try to hide it. They fear that their lies will be revealed.

  11. R j Says:

    DOGONALITY !!!!!!

    i LOVE it !!!! we’ve got a HUGE MONSTEROUS Samoyed

    and he’s got BUCKETSFUL of dogonality………………….

    gigantic white puffy dogonality !!!!

    it’s a darn good thing Sinjin was around to

    clear this up…………..otherwise our ” Rocky ”

    would be wandering around scratching his

    head ( well, chin actually ) .


    capt Z

    what do you MEAN there’s no unicorns ????

    are you off your medications again ???

  12. R j Says:

    POST AT 1639…………………..

    foggy. very, very foggy.

  13. CaptainZero Says:

    What’s with you Sillyman? Posting under several handles to give the appearance that there are more godheads on the site than there are? We don’t mind your presence here. Actually kind of fun. Pick a handle and stick by it!

    P.S. We are impressed by proof. Since you continue to have none, we aren’t. The Illiad is an old book too but that doesn’t mean people believe in giants.

    P.P.S. There WERE unicorns by I BBQd the last one over the weekend. MMM.

  14. CaptainZero Says:

    Odyssey, damn it.

  15. Dan Says:

    First you’re too cowardly to admit to anyone which god you worship (if your god does exist, he or she must be questioning your faith). And now you’re too cowardly to use your normal handle.

    You’re pathetic.

  16. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    R j I have had two Samoyeds. Great animals!

    Ninnieman says: …They fear that their lies will be revealed.

    What lies You can’t have a lie about nothing. A lie has to be about something.

    An atheist can’t lie about the existance of god! Only a person making a claim can do that:

    >There is a god
    >There is a loch ness monster
    >We have been visited by space aliens and they have abducted people
    >Bigfoot exists

    You can’t say a person is lying if they say “there is no god”. To deny something on the basis of a lack of evidence is completely valid.

    Conversely if someone can’t support their claims with evidence it is well within the possiblity of dishonesty to have made the claim in the first place. Could be the person is deluded, or indoctrinated into a belief in the irrational, and therby they may be honestly asserting their belief when making statement, but it still requires evidence for another to accept it as true.

    To deny something exists in the face of evidence would be a lie, but you and every religionist since the dawn of life on Earth has failed to any provide evidence of the existance of god..

  17. NatureofReality Says:

    PUT A FACE TO NATURAL PHENOMENA – Evolution of ‘god’ concept.

    – All anyone has to do is see an animal react to noise or movement in the woods and watch it assume something is there, something invisible to be wary of. Some unusual invisible force that must be respected and scared of, and how easily this assumption can be extrapolated into an all mighty invisible being at the cause of all things unknown by sentient beings. Belief in god is proof of evolution.

    Things metamorphose slowly from one thing into another and there are very fine lines between what is and what isn’t, like a penumbra.

    The cultivation of plants, the domestication of animals, the start of religion, it’s hard to say what is/was first. Are animals cuddling together scared under a ledge, after a lightning bolt/thunder close by, counted as religion? I mean how different is that anyway?, isn’t religion all about the fear of god?

    Chimps are seen to shake their fists at thunderstorms. There’s the origin of that ‘must have a sentient cause’ (put a face to it) religious thinking right there. Birds in labs will perform unusual movements they associate with food appearing, as if there’s a causal link.

    Any loud noise or startling occurrence MAY be a threatening predator, so we (i.e. animals) are geared to “put a face to natural phenomena”. And end up putting a face on what ever what do not know or can not explain:
    Hence Jesus, Satan, demons, God, angels, Bigfoot, etc.

    As humans become more sophisticated, these traits have fallen by the wayside. Except in religious fuckwits who remain in a primitive frozen state of bronze age concepts and ignorance.

  18. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    You have it nature. Fact everybody here has it except that imbecile solomon.

  19. R J Says:

    WHAT WHAT WHAT is going on around here ?!!?

    first, capt Z delivers a post declaiming the NON-EXISTENCE

    of UNICORNS !!!! and if that’s not enough………

    then, that wild-eyed Sinjin delivers a blistering post

    questioning the EXISTENCE OF BIGFOOT !!!!!!!

    how can this BE ???

    i’m worried i tell you………WORRIED !!