Who took your picture? It's a credit to them 'cause I'll bet it helps you look a lot more intelligent than you actually are.
Your moronic STUpor, dunce cap and clueless quotes capture the essence of your STUpidity. All in all, a very accurate portrayal even if a bit flattering.
The fundamental difference between Religion and Science: SCIENCE: 1) Science admits it doesn't know everything; and strives to continue learning. 2) Science uses an objective monitoring system called the "Scientific Method", which is used to determine everything from what life is, to how life can continue to exist, or even as to why something cannot work. It's emotionless, objective, and it's the most closely resembled to how real Nature works. 3) Concepts in Science, although sometimes intangible, are built on tangibles and tangible material constructs that exist in the real world. We may not be able to see the "atom", but we can prove it's by by doing such-and-such and we can manipulate in such-and-such way. 4) In order for something in Science to ultimately become "true", it must be repeatable and, obviously observable over time. RELIGION: 1) Religions state everything has a starting point of their God - and that their God is the correct version while all others are not. 2) Religion uses no objective method to view the world. It's all done so in a subjective lens of emotion and "belief". 3) Anything goes. The greater the fantasy, the better the Biblical story. 4) No proof needed to prove any statement in the Bible or any miracle in the world other than, "It's God's Will." As you can see, the differences are quite stark and absolutely contrast each other. As with religious differences, there are differences with people. Some people have the ability and strength to understand that a higher power called GOD, doesn't exist, and can view the world through a lens that Nature has given us. Other people can't. Let me specifically state that religion is not spirituality - as those two things are drastically different. Religious people scare me, spiritual people do not. My 0.02. Have a nice day.
What about atheist crackpots like STUpid? Who are so extreme and detached from reality that they contradict themselves in the same sentence and make up nonsensical "proofs" in their desperation to validate their beliefs? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3294316#post3294316 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3295476#post3295476
what a fricken troll. He is trying to change the meaning of his initial quote. he is trying to equate "There is plenty of science showing Stu is a crackpot" with [If] there is plenty of science showing Stu is a crackpot. Nice try Stu but there was no "if" in front of your crackpot statement. (which I quoted in context with a link.)
Anyone who claims they have the strength to understand that a higher power called God does not exist is as much of a crackpot as any religious person they feel superior too. Sorry to be rude... I do not really have a problem with what your wrote... but there is a strong chance you are a sock puppet.
The atheists know deep down that science doesn't prove, nor does it "exclude the alternatives" that they hold so dear. Thus, the necessity of silencing their opponents. To keep them quiet. Just look at any communist regime. Or look at any institution in the US that is dominated by pinko commies. You see nothing more than operations to stamp out opposition. First, they agitate to have guns taken away. Then, they rewrite history. Then, they silence opposition. If you want to know the real reason, for gun control, forget what they say, just look at all history's example of what happens when guns are taken away by atheists. Need further examples? How about the latest. Obama's new jobs creation speech. NPR published a transcript of the speech, of course deleting the sentence where Obama gaffed about Abraham Lincoln. In NPR's world, that sentence no longer exists. And if their gun control were enacted, I wouldn't be allowed to reveal what they deleted it, either.
I'm trying to equate no such thing you tosser. Quote from Jem "It is whether there is science showing how life evolved from non life." I merely used [If] instead of 'It is whether' .... " [If]... there is plenty of science showing life evolved from non life..." So actually by your own standards "It is whether there is science showing how life evolved from non life. You said there was... you are a crackpot. ....I never did say that - which makes you the crackpot. Here is my 'initial quote' "there is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life." Here it is where you are now trying to pretend I've changed it "there IS actually - plenty of science to show how life can come from non life. " But don't let that stop you from making ineffectual infantile remarks just because you, like your own sock puppet Trader Shits, can't address any of the substance. Mind you, anyone like yourself who is arguing for an imaginary Sky Woo over science itself, has to be a few amino acids short of a protein to start with.