Atheistic Bias & It's Angry Troll Cousin

126 posts / 0 new
Last post
Masterblaster21's picture


All I am saying is that it seems more plausible to believe that Microsoft happened by accident, than to believe that about intelligent life on Earth, which is so much more complex and dynamic than a computer or the OS on which it runs.

Sir Random's picture
The object you are using to

The object you are using to type this stuff is faster, smarter, more connected, and thinks faster than you ever could. We created it. Not your god. If your god created us, and we were able to make something better than us, doesn't that give cause for thinking that god may not be the great thing you think him to be?

algebe's picture
"All I am saying is that it

"All I am saying is that it seems more plausible to believe that Microsoft happened by accident, than to believe that about intelligent life on Earth"

LOL. Everyday I believe that Microsoft happened by accident. There certainly doesn't seem to much intelligent design in their products these days.

Life, once initiated by a process that we don't _yet_ fully understand, will be driven by natural selection to become ever more complex, provided that energy is continually feeding into the system (ultimately from the sun). After a few billion years and a few cataclysmic events, you'll probably end up with something like us. I find that scenario much more plausible than any sky fairy story. If the meteor hadn't hit Yucatan, reptilian theists would probably be bowing down to a god shaped like a big lizard.

Dave Matson's picture


It is unwise for you to attack the findings of a branch of science that you know little about. Truth is in the details, and it is so easy for someone like yourself to be swept away by an irresponsible Internet site. Take your example about Gorillas sometimes walking on their legs. If you knew more about the subject you would know that Gorillas can't keep it up for long periods of time. One of the adaptive signs for serious upright walking is in how the backbone connects to the skull. Gorillas are not build for distance walking, and that is the key to classifying upright walkers.

Your discussion of Archaeopteryx is a beautiful example of how you missed important details because you are not knowledgeable in the subject of paleontology, relying most likely on some incompetent site. "Archaeopteryx is best described as a mosaic bird." - Masterblaster21. A mosaic of bird and reptilian features is exactly what an intermediate is! You approached this topic with a false idea as to what an intermediate is, and that detail led you down the wrong path. I don't have time to explain why intermediates should be like that, that being another little side study you might be interested in. Let me note, in wrapping this post up, that genuine feathered dinosaur fossils are now known to exist. Hence, feathers don't necessarily define a bird.

That one guy's picture
MasterBlaster21 I feel you

MasterBlaster21 I feel you are unintentionally rooting your beliefs in philosophy that has no real basis or factual evidence and using your debating skills to to defend your philosophical standpoints. You seem either extremely deluded or just trying to convince yourself to stay sane. You seem like an intelligent person. Research the beginnings of the various mono-theistic churches. They are heavily rooted in expansion of countries and wars. Especially Islam which was just tailored to Muhammads moods when he was conquering cities and countries of the time. Straight up changed the Quoran so it made it ok for him to conquer people.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.