Evolution Hates Atheists.

[leroy]

if everything else is equal ......societies with a low birth rate are more likely to perish than societies with a high birth rate ...................this is the kind of uncontroversial fact that it is only denied in atheist forums

Really?

Look at the African and middle-east societies. How are they doing? I mean, compared to Britain, Canada, Japan, etc.?

Leroy having no clue what an uncontroversial fact is.

You always surprised me with how dumb you can get.

What is so dumb about what he is saying? It is true that women generally do not select Atheists for mating.

Personally I think the reason for this is that Atheists tend to have weird ideas about sexuality.

just for the record, MarsCydonia claims that this statement is dumb........................

if everything else is equal ......societies with a low birth rate are more likely to perish than societies with a high birth rate

can the atheist members form this forum tell him that the statement is true? please

 

[thenexttodie]

so he_who_is_nobody...................


l what is exactly your problem?


1 accepting the fact that words have more than 1 meaning?

2 the meaning is given by the context?

Atheists tend use word games to make it seem like no one knows what you are talking about. They will tell you are wrong and then 5 mins later they will pretend that the word "wrong" is some strange thing no one has ever heard of.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

so he_who_is_nobody...................


l what is exactly your problem?


1 accepting the fact that words have more than 1 meaning?

2 the meaning is given by the context?



for example if you look for theory in the dictionary you will find this definitions

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.


2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

if someone says that "something" is just a theory, he is talking about definition 2 because the word theory is being preceded by the word just



again this is something that even a 13yo would understand, atheist forums seem to be the only place where people have problems in understanding this kind of stuff and the only place where people make a big deal out of definitions.

The problem is that you get upset when people correct you when you misuse a word, even though you are always saying, "just let me know what word I should use." How many times has someone corrected your use of a term and you retort with "word games"? How many times after you have been corrected, you go right back to using the word incorrectly? This is your problem. Pretending that you are so above it now is hilarious. An honest person would not cry "word games" at every turn. An honest person would be happy using better and more precise language in a discussion. An honest person actually wants to discuss the merits of an argument, and not whine about semantics.

just for the record, MarsCydonia claims that this statement is dumb........................

if everything else is equal ......societies with a low birth rate are more likely to perish than societies with a high birth rate

can the atheist members form this forum tell him that the statement is true? please

It must be a good thing that MarsCydonia did not disagree with that. Again, MarsCydonia said, "Look at the African and middle-east societies. How are they doing? I mean, compared to Britain, Canada, Japan, etc.?" The only way you would think that MarsCydonia disagreed with that is if you think all those places are equal. However, we all know it is because you rushed out a response and actually did not read what MarsCydonia wrote.

 

[thenexttodie]

The problem is that you get upset when people correct you when you misuse a word, even though you are always saying, "just let me know what word I should use." How many times has someone corrected your use of a term and you retort with "word games"?

Women tend not to select atheists as mates. That was the point Leroy made. Not who more correctly applies grammar.

 

[leroy]

The problem is that you get upset when people correct you when you misuse a word, even though you are always saying, "just let me know what word I should use." How many times has someone corrected your use of a term and you retort with "word games"? How many times after you have been corrected, you go right back to using the word incorrectly? This is your problem. Pretending that you are so above it now is hilarious. An honest person would not cry "word games" at every turn. An honest person would be happy using better and more precise language in a discussion. An honest person actually wants to discuss the merits of an argument, and not whine about semantics.

1 words have more than 1 definition, not using the term exactly in the same way that you would personally have use ti, can not be counted as a misuse for example you can not claim misuse of the term theory just because you personally don't like the second definition.

2 when I say just let me know what word I should use I usually don't receive an answer, and when I do receive an answer I usually use that new word, for example I stoped using free will and used will instead because you insisted that will is a better representation of the definition that I was using

3 what upset me is not that you corrected my mistake what upsets me is that instead of interacting with my arguments, you try to nullify it with word games.

An honest person actually wants to discuss the merits of an argument, and not whine about semantics

yes that is my point


for example If a YEC claims that evolution is just a theory, he obviously means that evolution has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (he is using definition 2 of the term theory)


any honest evolutionist would try to provide evidence for evolution in order to overcome the objection

a dishonest evolutionist would start a 60 pages conversation explaining the proper use of the word theory,



sadly, usually evolutionists would do the dishonest thing rather than the honest one


when someone makes an objection and you know how to answer the objection, one would simply answer to it. you wont waste time nor distract the attention in semantic games


when someone makes an objection and you don't know how to answer it, a dishonest person would simply try to focus on semantics, instad of simply admitting that the objection was a good one

 

[Akamia]

If a YEC claims that evolution is just a theory, he obviously means that evolution has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (he is using definition 2 of the term theory)


any honest evolutionist would try to provide evidence for evolution in order to overcome the objection

a dishonest evolutionist would start a 60 pages conversation explaining the proper use of the word theory,



sadly, usually evolutionists would do the dishonest thing rather than the honest one

First, in my experience, those defending evolution often do both.

And explaining what is meant by "theory" in science is not dishonest. There's a reason we do that; actually, referring to it as a "theory" the way you use it is quite dishonest. I've seen enough YECs, they know exactly what they're doing. They're equivocating two different meanings of the same word and using the one that makes the theory of evolution sound like it doesn't have the ground it actually does.

However, providing evidence to a dishonest person seems to be an exercise in futility, considering they will consistently ignore it at every turn and keep spouting their nonsense. Case in point: you.

At this point, it's more for the benefit of anyone else who happens to come along and read the conversation.

 

[leroy]

If a YEC claims that evolution is just a theory, he obviously means that evolution has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (he is using definition 2 of the term theory)


any honest evolutionist would try to provide evidence for evolution in order to overcome the objection

a dishonest evolutionist would start a 60 pages conversation explaining the proper use of the word theory,



sadly, usually evolutionists would do the dishonest thing rather than the honest one

First, in my experience, those defending evolution often do both.

And explaining what is meant by "theory" in science is not dishonest. There's a reason we do that; actually, referring to it as a "theory" the way you use it is quite dishonest. I've seen enough YECs, they know exactly what they're doing. They're equivocating two different meanings of the same word and using the one that makes the theory of evolution sound like it doesn't have the ground it actually does.

However, providing evidence to a dishonest person seems to be an exercise in futility, considering they will consistently ignore it at every turn and keep spouting their nonsense. Case in point: you.

At this point, it's more for the benefit of anyone else who happens to come along and read the conversation.

sure, an honest person would provide evidence for evolution and maybe, make a quick note clarifying and explaining the proper use of the term theory .................but the main focus of the reply would be on the evidence for evolution.


so look at this conversation,


My point is that religious people reproduce better than atheist. And I even provided a study that proves that the statement is true. ............and I pointed out the fact that I personally find it funny and ironic because evolution (natural selection) favors individuals that reproduce more efficiently



what are the objections that I am receiving ?

did someone quoted a study that shows otherwise...............No

did some one showed that the study used an incorrect methodology........................No

did someone showed that I misunderstood the results ........................No


every single objection has been made is based on semantic games, things like "but didn't you say that atheism is a religion" or "so you now accept evolution"



----

 

[thenexttodie]

If a YEC claims that evolution is just a theory, he obviously means that evolution has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (he is using definition 2 of the term theory)


any honest evolutionist would try to provide evidence for evolution in order to overcome the objection

a dishonest evolutionist would start a 60 pages conversation explaining the proper use of the word theory,



sadly, usually evolutionists would do the dishonest thing rather than the honest one

First, in my experience, those defending evolution often do both.

And explaining what is meant by "theory" in science is not dishonest. There's a reason we do that; actually, referring to it as a "theory" the way you use it is quite dishonest.

Are you a man or a woman? Just curious, because it says you are a "Timelord"

 

[Akamia]

Are you a man or a woman?

Irrelevant.

 

[thenexttodie]

Are you a man or a woman?

Irrelevant.

Well I'm just asking, because in your profile it says you are a Timelord.

Just a simple a question. I am a man. Are you a man or a woman?

 

[Akamia]

Well I'm just asking, because in your profile it says you are a Timelord.

Just a simple a question. I am a man. Are you a man or a woman?

I am male.

Though again, it is irrelevant.

 

[thenexttodie]

I am male.

Though again, it is irrelevant.

Well actually it is not irrelevant.

 

[Akamia]

I am male.

Though again, it is irrelevant.

Well actually it is not irrelevant.

Actually, it is. Whether I was male or female has no bearing on the issue at hand.

 

[Steelmage99]

Leroy, fuck off with your accusations of playing word games.

You place importance on meaning and context, yet when asked to clarify what you actually mean and in what context you are talking.....you invariably accuse the person asking of playing word games.

Practice what you preach, you dishonest little toad.

 

[MarsCydonia]

It must be a good thing that MarsCydonia did not disagree with that. Again, MarsCydonia said, "Look at the African and middle-east societies. How are they doing? I mean, compared to Britain, Canada, Japan, etc.?" The only way you would think that MarsCydonia disagreed with that is if you think all those places are equal. However, we all know it is because you rushed out a response and actually did not read what MarsCydonia wrote.

Because despite his "all-else being equal"*, Leroy still managed to split societies into "low birth rate/nonreligious" and "high birth rate/religious". So I think its fair game to call him out on supporting his claim.

I haven't looked at Gate Brittan's demography but I can predict that they have a birth rate under average. and below the average of religious countries.

if everything else is equal ......societies with a low birth rate are more likely to perish than societies with a high birth rate ...................this is the kind of uncontroversial fact that it is only denied in atheist forums

Look at the African and middle-east societies. How are they doing? I mean, compared to Britain, Canada, Japan, etc.?

so what? natural selection, tends to select individuals that are better at reproducing, natural selection (evolution) doesn't care which one is happier or lives better.

So what? So you made a claim but are now running from substantiating it.

You said with non-religious/low-birth rate societies are more likely to perish than religious/high-birth rate societies. I gave you exemples of each and I'll even be more precise now:
Non-religious/low-birth rate societies: United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, etc.
Religious/high-birth rate societies: Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.

How do you come to the conclusion that the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, etc. are more likely to perish than Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.*?

Or can we agree that you just bullshitted?

[size=85*Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. are all in the top 10 most religious countries and the 10 highest birthrate countries.[/size]

there is a selective bias for individuals that reproduce better (fact)

religious people reproduce better than non religious (fact)

but yet, you don't have the balls to deny any of those 2 facts explicitly because you know that you will be proven wrong,

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it is your poor english at work here because that is not how evolution works. Better? Do you mean have more offsprings than the non-religious?

Because if you mean something different than "have more offsprings than the non-religious", you need to write in english that people can actually make sense of.

"Have more offsprings than the non-religious" is factual, see my statement above about high birthrate in Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.

My point is that religious people reproduce better than atheist. And I even provided a study that proves that the statement is true

You did? Where?
Oh... You made up another fantasy in your brainless mind rather than understand reality again...

did someone quoted a study that shows otherwise...............No
did some one showed that the study used an incorrect methodology........................No
did someone showed that I misunderstood the results ........................No

See, again what I meant by Leroy's fantasies (the above quote), vs the reality:
Did someone quote a study that shows otherwise: Yes
Did someone showed that I misunderstood the results: Yes

Does Leroy have the intelligence to understand when these two statements occured: No

a dishonest evolutionist would start a 60 pages conversation explaining the proper use of the word theory,

sadly, usually evolutionists would do the dishonest thing rather than the honest one

That's hilariously ironic coming from someone who still has no evidence nor even coherent and meaningful explanation of what he means with Leroy's brainless "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.".

 

[MarsCydonia]

What is so dumb about what he is saying? It is true that women generally do not select Atheists for mating.

Personally I think the reason for this is that Atheists tend to have weird ideas about sexuality.

- It's Leroy so... Everything. The chances of Leroy writing something deep or insightful is equal to chances you do.
- Or as we can from you say is "true", the chances are equal to writing honest or that corelates with reality. I won't even ask for a citation, you have none.
- From someone obsessed with transgederism, I wonder what you think atheist's "weird ideas" are. Pretty sure you share the same indoctrination-damaged brain that makes you think sex, sexuality and gender mean the same things.

But hey, continue to think that its wrong to treat people as their gender but ok to treat people as property. I'm sure women can't wait to get with that.

 

[leroy]

MarsCydonia

So what? So you made a claim but are now running from substantiating it.

You said with non-religious/low-birth rate societies are more likely to perish than religious/high-birth rate societies. I gave you exemples of each and I'll even be more precise now:
Non-religious/low-birth rate societies: United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, etc.
Religious/high-birth rate societies: Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.

How do you come to the conclusion that the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, etc. are more likely to perish than Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.*?

read carefully, please do not repeat the same straw man fort the third time.


1 If everything else is equal the society that has a lower birth rate is more likely to perish than a sociality with a higher birth rate (fact)

this is if you have 2 societies, each with the same level of education, same medicines same mortality rate, same economic power etc.......the society that has 3 kids per couple is less likely to perish than the society that has 1 kid per couple

Note that this has nothing to do with your comments on Japan and Somalia,


2 Religious people tend to reproduce better than atheists, (they tend to have more offspring) the average birth rate in religious people is higher than the atheist (non religious) rate (fact)




atheist forums are the only place where people would deny those 2 uncontroversial facts ..........



why don't you simply grant these 2 uncontroversial facts, and admit that I was right?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

read carefully, please do not repeat the same straw man fort the third time.


1 If everything else is equal the society that has a lower birth rate is more likely to perish than a sociality with a higher birth rate (fact)

Not a fact. If there's no overlap between the two, if one isn't feeding into the other, than if everything else is equal both the slower breeding and faster breeding should have an equal chance to succeed, not perish. There are no selective pressures in this example favoring one over the others, numbers alone aren't enough if everything else is equal.

this is if you have 2 societies, each with the same level of education, same medicines same mortality rate, same economic power etc.......the society that has 3 kids per couple is less likely to perish than the society that has 1 kid per couple

Note that this has nothing to do with your comments on Japan and Somalia,

You're exaggerating the numbers on both ends to poison things... both theists and atheists are breeding at greater than 2 kids per couple, meaning neither is going to perish due simply to a lack of breeding.

2 Religious people tend to reproduce better than atheists, (they tend to have more offspring) the average birth rate in religious people is higher than the atheist (non religious) rate (fact)

All things aren't equal, and more prolifically does not equate to better. Plus, religious people are adding to the atheist population with their spawn, hence the sets overlap and bleed into each other rendering the entire argument moot.

atheist forums are the only place where people would deny those 2 uncontroversial facts ..........

why don't you simply grant these 2 uncontroversial facts, and admit that I was right?

Because they simply aren't facts in the proper context. Most atheists came from religious parents, therefore the fact that theists breed a bit more often actually serves to increase the atheist population over time.

 

[Visaki]

however you are not denying any of these facts, are you?

Not really the first one though I have seen no evidence for it. It feels right from personal experience and I can work with that in this case. Nor the third since I don't pretend to read minds (unlike you). The second one is not actually a fact and only shows that you don't really understand ToE (Theory of Evolution) or how natural selection works.

Moreover your "facts" #1 and #2 are not really connected for reasons stated before.

Well actually it is not irrelevant.

Actually it is since it is a well established and undeniable fact that Timelords can change their apparent gender upon regeneration.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The problem is that you get upset when people correct you when you misuse a word, even though you are always saying, "just let me know what word I should use." How many times has someone corrected your use of a term and you retort with "word games"? How many times after you have been corrected, you go right back to using the word incorrectly? This is your problem. Pretending that you are so above it now is hilarious. An honest person would not cry "word games" at every turn. An honest person would be happy using better and more precise language in a discussion. An honest person actually wants to discuss the merits of an argument, and not whine about semantics.

1 words have more than 1 definition, not using the term exactly in the same way that you would personally have use ti, can not be counted as a misuse for example you can not claim misuse of the term theory just because you personally don't like the second definition.

Correct. However, whenever someone points out that you are using a word wrong or just pointing out a better term to use, you cry "word games". Everyone knows that language is a tricky thing. That is why definitions are so important. Yet, whenever someone tries to get precise with you, you cry "word games." An honest person would not do this, and an honest person would not waste this much time on semantics. It honestly shows that you actually have nothing more to say, yet refuse to stop.

2 when I say just let me know what word I should use I usually don't receive an answer, and when I do receive an answer I usually use that new word, for example I stoped using free will and used will instead because you insisted that will is a better representation of the definition that I was using

This is a lie and you know it. Just look at what I quoted from you on the last page. I pointed out that you were misusing the term evolution and, as most everyone has already pointed out, you are still missusing it. Would you like other examples of you being corrected and failing to accept the correction? We can also talk about determinism and how I defined it correctly using a philosophical source, yet you kept saying it was wrong and I was not using a philosophical definition. I am actually still not sure if you accept the correct definition of determinism. Beyond that, hackenslash corrected you on will and free will, I reminded you of the correction (several pages later), and several pages later you finally stopped-ish. There is also a funny bit in between the correction and you accepting the correction of will and free will in which you quote-mine in order to not accept the correction. Not sure why you would lie about this on a written forum, it is so easy to expose your lie with just a few clicks.

3 what upset me is not that you corrected my mistake what upsets me is that instead of interacting with my arguments, you try to nullify it with word games.

And there we have it, the cry of "word games". Dandan/Leroy, pointing out your use of incorrect terminology is interacting with your argument. Pointing out the logical fallacies (another thing that gets the cry of "word games") is interacting with your argument. Again, an honest person would not do this. They might object and bring up points as to why they feel the term they are using is correct, but they would not cry "word games" at every turn.

An honest person actually wants to discuss the merits of an argument, and not whine about semantics

yes that is my point


for example If a YEC claims that evolution is just a theory, he obviously means that evolution has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (he is using definition 2 of the term theory)


any honest evolutionist would try to provide evidence for evolution in order to overcome the objection

a dishonest evolutionist would start a 60 pages conversation explaining the proper use of the word theory,

When did that ever happen? In all our discussions about evolution with you, it has always been people giving you evidence and you ignoring it, acting obtuse, and re-posting the same mistakes over and over again. You even drop it for a while and try the same flawed arguments on new people (echo location in whales and bats).

Beyond that, the only other threads have been about philosophical matters, and those need proper definitions from the start. Those threads are always people correcting your misuse of terms and pointing out your logical fallacies and you crying "word games".

sadly, usually evolutionists would do the dishonest thing rather than the honest one

:lol:

when someone makes an objection and you don't know how to answer it, a dishonest person would simply try to focus on semantics, instad of simply admitting that the objection was a good one

That is exactly what you do. Just look at the examples I have linked to in this post. Perhaps write that on your bathroom mirror so you will see it every morning.

At this point, it's more for the benefit of anyone else who happens to come along and read the conversation.

Exactly!