Anti-Atheist Bigotry: Atheists Are As Distrusted As Rapists

[BADecker]

Blah blah blah

Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist"

Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion.

Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha.

Implying at least 2 logical fallacies and a wrong definition, yes you managed to "prove" this.

Nothing to imply. Stand the dictionary defs up against religion, and you will find that atheism is a religion. Now, I'll grant you that some people will press the issue saying that atheism is only a philosophy. But atheism is so close to religion that it might as well be one if it isn't.

[Melech]

Blah blah blah

Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist"

Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion.

Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha.

Implying at least 2 logical fallacies and a wrong definition, yes you managed to "prove" this.

Nothing to imply. Stand the dictionary defs up against religion, and you will find that atheism is a religion. Now, I'll grant you that some people will press the issue saying that atheism is only a philosophy. But atheism is so close to religion that it might as well be one if it isn't.

Since you are too lazy to look at a dictionary... here's a link and quote

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

religion
noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of religion

    : the belief in a god or in a group of gods

    : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

Pray tell us, how does an Atheist fit either of these definitions?



Here is another refutation from actual Atheists...

https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

What Is Atheism?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences...

...Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

And finally, since I know you love Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

Irreligion (adjective form: non-religious or irreligious) is the absence, indifference, or rejection of religion.[1]

When characterized as the rejection of religious belief, it encompasses atheism, agnosticism, religious dissidence, and secular humanism. When characterized as the absence of religious belief, it may also include "spiritual but not religious", pandeism, ignosticism, nontheism, pantheism, panentheism, and freethought. When characterized as indifference to religion, it is known as apatheism.

[BADecker]

Nothing to imply. Stand the dictionary defs up against religion, and you will find that atheism is a religion. Now, I'll grant you that some people will press the issue saying that atheism is only a philosophy. But atheism is so close to religion that it might as well be one if it isn't.

Since you are too lazy to look at a dictionary... here's a link and quote

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

religion
noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of religion

    : the belief in a god or in a group of gods

    : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

Pray tell us, how does an Atheist fit either of these definitions?

Okay. I'll show you again. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

Here is another refutation from actual Atheists...

https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

What Is Atheism?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences...

...Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

The whole idea of atheism suggesting what its definitions and boundaries and meanings are, shows that even atheism has identified its dogma. This is one of the greatest ways in which atheism, itself, expresses that it is a religion, of course, in contradiction to what they formally say.

And finally, since I know you love Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

Irreligion (adjective form: non-religious or irreligious) is the absence, indifference, or rejection of religion.[1]

When characterized as the rejection of religious belief, it encompasses atheism, agnosticism, religious dissidence, and secular humanism. When characterized as the absence of religious belief, it may also include "spiritual but not religious", pandeism, ignosticism, nontheism, pantheism, panentheism, and freethought. When characterized as indifference to religion, it is known as apatheism.

When you examine anything that expresses something, you find that the people who are doing the expressing have a religion going for themselves. Dictionary.com, as I have shown above, lets us know that if for no other reason, blatant expressing is a religion under #6 which says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Atheism is alive and active. It is a religion.

[organofcorti]

When you examine anything that expresses something, you find that the people who are doing the expressing have a religion going for themselves. Dictionary.com, as I have shown above, lets us know that if for no other reason, blatant expressing is a religion under #6 which says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Atheism is alive and active. It is a religion.

So is looking things up in the dictionary, apparently.

[Moloch]

...a religion under #6 which says, "blah blah blah"

You do not get to pick and choose which definition you like best

When speaking about a religion as you are, you use definition #1

#6 is used rarely in cases such as, "turning debating into a religion"... which is not the same usage of the word religion... it is a colloquial expression

You are either fucking stupid, or intentional conflating definitions to confuse people... please stop with this nonsense

[Gaugh]

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

[BADecker]

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

Yes, but. An atheist believes in freedom. If he didn't, he wouldn't freely do the things that religions say you shouldn't... like raping.

The trouble with atheists is not in that they love freedom. Loving freedom is great. Their problem is that they don't realize how using their freedom to rape (for example) actually takes their freedom from them. They start to realize it when they are thrown into prison, where they lose a lot of their freedoms.

Now, I am not saying that all atheists are rapists by any means. I am not even saying that the majority of atheists lack understanding of how to be free in a general way. I am simply saying that their idea of freedom from God isn't really freedom. Why not? Because, just like theists, they are not smart enough to know how to live freely except that they go to God for the instructions God has placed in the Bible.

[Holdaaja]

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

Because, just like theists, they are not smart enough to know how to live freely except that they go to God for the instructions God has placed in the Bible.

Wait, did you just say religious people are too stupid to know how to live without reading instructions from bible?

[Moloch]

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

Their problem is that they don't realize how using their freedom to rape (for example) actually takes their freedom from them. They start to realize it when they are thrown into prison, where they lose a lot of their freedoms.

God damn it you are such a stupid fucking asshole

Atheists are the most moral of all people (evidenced by statistics)... 20% of Americans are Atheist, yet only 0.2% of prisoners are Atheists... do you need any more statistics than that?

According to prison statistics, Christians are 10,000% (100x) more likely to commit a felony than an Atheist...

People like to think Blacks commit more crimes than White people... but it's only like 3-to-1... Christian vs Atheist is 100-to-1... Basically, Christians are the ones committing the vast majority of crimes in America... statistically proven to be true

[BADecker]

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

Their problem is that they don't realize how using their freedom to rape (for example) actually takes their freedom from them. They start to realize it when they are thrown into prison, where they lose a lot of their freedoms.

God damn it you are such a stupid fucking asshole

Atheists are the most moral of all people (evidenced by statistics)... 20% of Americans are Atheist, yet only 0.2% of prisoners are Atheists... do you need any more statistics than that?

According to prison statistics, Christians are 10,000% (100x) more likely to commit a felony than an Atheist...

People like to think Blacks commit more crimes than White people... but it's only like 3-to-1... Christian vs Atheist is 100-to-1... Basically, Christians are the ones committing the vast majority of crimes in America... statistically proven to be true

Tsk, tsk. How you talk! Just be glad God doesn't take your freedom away for how you misuse it.

How's the statistics for how many before-prison atheists find religion when inside?

As far as Christians doing worse than atheists (if your statistics are even accurate), the devil already has the atheists. He doesn't need to work so hard on them. He is trying to get the Christians, so he focuses on tempting them. Since Christians are only people, they often fall for this greater tempting to do wrong. Doesn't mean they are less saved as Christians... or that atheists will be saved at all as long as they remain atheists.

Turn while you can, and be saved for eternal life. As it is, you are throwing your freedom away.

[BADecker]

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

Because, just like theists, they are not smart enough to know how to live freely except that they go to God for the instructions God has placed in the Bible.

Wait, did you just say religious people are too stupid to know how to live without reading instructions from bible?

In a lot of ways, yes. And so are the rest of the people.   

[organofcorti]

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

Their problem is that they don't realize how using their freedom to rape (for example) actually takes their freedom from them. They start to realize it when they are thrown into prison, where they lose a lot of their freedoms.

God damn it you are such a stupid fucking asshole

Atheists are the most moral of all people (evidenced by statistics)... 20% of Americans are Atheist, yet only 0.2% of prisoners are Atheists... do you need any more statistics than that?

According to prison statistics, Christians are 10,000% (100x) more likely to commit a felony than an Atheist...

People like to think Blacks commit more crimes than White people... but it's only like 3-to-1... Christian vs Atheist is 100-to-1... Basically, Christians are the ones committing the vast majority of crimes in America... statistically proven to be true

Tsk, tsk. How you talk! Just be glad God doesn't take your freedom away for how you misuse it.

How's the statistics for how many before-prison atheists find religion when inside?

As far as Christians doing worse than atheists (if your statistics are even accurate), the devil already has the atheists. He doesn't need to work so hard on them. He is trying to get the Christians, so he focuses on tempting them. Since Christians are only people, they often fall for this greater tempting to do wrong. Doesn't mean they are less saved as Christians... or that atheists will be saved at all as long as they remain atheists.

Turn while you can, and be saved for eternal life. As it is, you are throwing your freedom away.

You use science and statistics when it suits your purpose and then ignore them or denigrate them when it doesn't, so  it would be best if you do not weigh in on anything to do with science or with statistics.

[BADecker]

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

Their problem is that they don't realize how using their freedom to rape (for example) actually takes their freedom from them. They start to realize it when they are thrown into prison, where they lose a lot of their freedoms.

God damn it you are such a stupid fucking asshole

Atheists are the most moral of all people (evidenced by statistics)... 20% of Americans are Atheist, yet only 0.2% of prisoners are Atheists... do you need any more statistics than that?

According to prison statistics, Christians are 10,000% (100x) more likely to commit a felony than an Atheist...

People like to think Blacks commit more crimes than White people... but it's only like 3-to-1... Christian vs Atheist is 100-to-1... Basically, Christians are the ones committing the vast majority of crimes in America... statistically proven to be true

Tsk, tsk. How you talk! Just be glad God doesn't take your freedom away for how you misuse it.

How's the statistics for how many before-prison atheists find religion when inside?

As far as Christians doing worse than atheists (if your statistics are even accurate), the devil already has the atheists. He doesn't need to work so hard on them. He is trying to get the Christians, so he focuses on tempting them. Since Christians are only people, they often fall for this greater tempting to do wrong. Doesn't mean they are less saved as Christians... or that atheists will be saved at all as long as they remain atheists.

Turn while you can, and be saved for eternal life. As it is, you are throwing your freedom away.

You use science and statistics when it suits your purpose and then ignore them or denigrate them when it doesn't, so  it would be best if you do not weigh in on anything to do with science or with statistics.

Here you go again, not providing links to the things that you say, nor explaining what you are talking about.

As most of the people can see, you are simply full of deceit. But, you are a person, and until your end comes, I respect that. Why do I respect that? Because there is always the chance, no matter how slim, that you will turn to God and be saved.

[organofcorti]

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

Their problem is that they don't realize how using their freedom to rape (for example) actually takes their freedom from them. They start to realize it when they are thrown into prison, where they lose a lot of their freedoms.

God damn it you are such a stupid fucking asshole

Atheists are the most moral of all people (evidenced by statistics)... 20% of Americans are Atheist, yet only 0.2% of prisoners are Atheists... do you need any more statistics than that?

According to prison statistics, Christians are 10,000% (100x) more likely to commit a felony than an Atheist...

People like to think Blacks commit more crimes than White people... but it's only like 3-to-1... Christian vs Atheist is 100-to-1... Basically, Christians are the ones committing the vast majority of crimes in America... statistically proven to be true

Tsk, tsk. How you talk! Just be glad God doesn't take your freedom away for how you misuse it.

How's the statistics for how many before-prison atheists find religion when inside?

As far as Christians doing worse than atheists (if your statistics are even accurate), the devil already has the atheists. He doesn't need to work so hard on them. He is trying to get the Christians, so he focuses on tempting them. Since Christians are only people, they often fall for this greater tempting to do wrong. Doesn't mean they are less saved as Christians... or that atheists will be saved at all as long as they remain atheists.

Turn while you can, and be saved for eternal life. As it is, you are throwing your freedom away.

You use science and statistics when it suits your purpose and then ignore them or denigrate them when it doesn't, so  it would be best if you do not weigh in on anything to do with science or with statistics.

Here you go again, not providing links to the things that you say, nor explaining what you are talking about.

As most of the people can see, you are simply full of deceit. But, you are a person, and until your end comes, I respect that. Why do I respect that? Because there is always the chance, no matter how slim, that you will turn to God and be saved.

So you're just going to go with not trusting statistics or science, then? That your final answer?

[BADecker]

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

Their problem is that they don't realize how using their freedom to rape (for example) actually takes their freedom from them. They start to realize it when they are thrown into prison, where they lose a lot of their freedoms.

God damn it you are such a stupid fucking asshole

Atheists are the most moral of all people (evidenced by statistics)... 20% of Americans are Atheist, yet only 0.2% of prisoners are Atheists... do you need any more statistics than that?

According to prison statistics, Christians are 10,000% (100x) more likely to commit a felony than an Atheist...

People like to think Blacks commit more crimes than White people... but it's only like 3-to-1... Christian vs Atheist is 100-to-1... Basically, Christians are the ones committing the vast majority of crimes in America... statistically proven to be true

Tsk, tsk. How you talk! Just be glad God doesn't take your freedom away for how you misuse it.

How's the statistics for how many before-prison atheists find religion when inside?

As far as Christians doing worse than atheists (if your statistics are even accurate), the devil already has the atheists. He doesn't need to work so hard on them. He is trying to get the Christians, so he focuses on tempting them. Since Christians are only people, they often fall for this greater tempting to do wrong. Doesn't mean they are less saved as Christians... or that atheists will be saved at all as long as they remain atheists.

Turn while you can, and be saved for eternal life. As it is, you are throwing your freedom away.

You use science and statistics when it suits your purpose and then ignore them or denigrate them when it doesn't, so  it would be best if you do not weigh in on anything to do with science or with statistics.

Here you go again, not providing links to the things that you say, nor explaining what you are talking about.

As most of the people can see, you are simply full of deceit. But, you are a person, and until your end comes, I respect that. Why do I respect that? Because there is always the chance, no matter how slim, that you will turn to God and be saved.

So you're just going to go with not trusting statistics or science, then? That your final answer?

I don't really know what you mean.

If by "science" you mean science theories, why would anyone trust them, since they have not been proven to be factual? Of course, there is a way that you can trust science theories. You can trust that they are theories until they have been proven to be factual.

Why do you often suggest all kinds of generalities, as well as suggesting that someone thinks a certain way about those generalities? And then you won't even answer the question about why you do this?

[organofcorti]

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

Their problem is that they don't realize how using their freedom to rape (for example) actually takes their freedom from them. They start to realize it when they are thrown into prison, where they lose a lot of their freedoms.

God damn it you are such a stupid fucking asshole

Atheists are the most moral of all people (evidenced by statistics)... 20% of Americans are Atheist, yet only 0.2% of prisoners are Atheists... do you need any more statistics than that?

According to prison statistics, Christians are 10,000% (100x) more likely to commit a felony than an Atheist...

People like to think Blacks commit more crimes than White people... but it's only like 3-to-1... Christian vs Atheist is 100-to-1... Basically, Christians are the ones committing the vast majority of crimes in America... statistically proven to be true

Tsk, tsk. How you talk! Just be glad God doesn't take your freedom away for how you misuse it.

How's the statistics for how many before-prison atheists find religion when inside?

As far as Christians doing worse than atheists (if your statistics are even accurate), the devil already has the atheists. He doesn't need to work so hard on them. He is trying to get the Christians, so he focuses on tempting them. Since Christians are only people, they often fall for this greater tempting to do wrong. Doesn't mean they are less saved as Christians... or that atheists will be saved at all as long as they remain atheists.

Turn while you can, and be saved for eternal life. As it is, you are throwing your freedom away.

You use science and statistics when it suits your purpose and then ignore them or denigrate them when it doesn't, so  it would be best if you do not weigh in on anything to do with science or with statistics.

Here you go again, not providing links to the things that you say, nor explaining what you are talking about.

As most of the people can see, you are simply full of deceit. But, you are a person, and until your end comes, I respect that. Why do I respect that? Because there is always the chance, no matter how slim, that you will turn to God and be saved.

So you're just going to go with not trusting statistics or science, then? That your final answer?

I don't really know what you mean.

If by "science" you mean science theories, why would anyone trust them, since they have not been proven to be factual? Of course, there is a way that you can trust science theories. You can trust that they are theories until they have been proven to be factual.

Why do you often suggest all kinds of generalities, as well as suggesting that someone thinks a certain way about those generalities? And then you won't even answer the question about why you do this?

Either you trust and use science and/or statistics, or you don't. There is no in between.

[Moloch]

If by "science" you mean science theories, why would anyone trust them, since they have not been proven to be factual? Of course, there is a way that you can trust science theories. You can trust that they are theories until they have been proven to be factual.

It's a shame gravity is just a theory... I suppose that means there is a chance gravity doesn't exist?

I suppose if you think gravity is "just a theory", that it doesn't affect you?

Naw, you're wrong... Both gravity and evolution are proven to be a true, factual and predictive representation of reality... which is basically what a theory means in science... learn your words

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory.

[BADecker]

If by "science" you mean science theories, why would anyone trust them, since they have not been proven to be factual? Of course, there is a way that you can trust science theories. You can trust that they are theories until they have been proven to be factual.

It's a shame gravity is just a theory... I suppose that means there is a chance gravity doesn't exist?

See? This is where you are either mixed up, or you are not being clear intentionally. The law of gravity is not a theory. The explanation of why gravity works the way it does is the thing that is the theory.

Gravity law is law. Gravity theory is theory.

I suppose if you think gravity is "just a theory", that it doesn't affect you?

Naw, you're wrong... Both gravity and evolution are proven to be a true, factual and predictive representation of reality... which is basically what a theory means in science... learn your words

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory.

Regarding evolution, something exists. It has been termed evolution. Since the thing that exists, does indeed exist, if you call it evolution, then evolution exists.

Evolution theory talks about some things that are not known to exist. It also talks about the reasons why the existence termed "evolution" exists, and why some of the things in evolution theory might exist.

They are two different things... evolution and evolution theory.

People can write all kinds of things in Wikipedia. A lot of Wikipedia is not truth. It is a good starting point, to see what a subject is about in general. But it needs to be backed up by other info before it can be known to be factual.

This is something like Quantum Physics. QP is complex probability. It always needs to be backed up by something else before it can be known to be factual.

Just because a scientific theory is often made up of some science facts, does not make the theory itself to be factual. The theory takes the facts and combines and twists them into something new that is not known to be factual until it has been proven factual.

For example. Big Bang Theory probably will never be known to be true. Why not? As good as it might sound, there is no way to go back 13 or 14 billion years to see if it is true. There is always the chance that something unforeseen might have been there to make all the best BB theory to be non-factual.

It's the same with all science theory. Until it is proven to be factual, it is just theory, even if it has the word "science" in front of it.

[Moloch]

If by "science" you mean science theories, why would anyone trust them, since they have not been proven to be factual? Of course, there is a way that you can trust science theories. You can trust that they are theories until they have been proven to be factual.

It's a shame gravity is just a theory... I suppose that means there is a chance gravity doesn't exist?

See? This is where you are either mixed up, or you are not being clear intentionally. The law of gravity is not a theory. The explanation of why gravity works the way it does is the thing that is the theory.

Gravity law is law. Gravity theory is theory.

I suppose if you think gravity is "just a theory", that it doesn't affect you?

Naw, you're wrong... Both gravity and evolution are proven to be a true, factual and predictive representation of reality... which is basically what a theory means in science... learn your words

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory.

Regarding evolution, something exists. It has been termed evolution. Since the thing that exists, does indeed exist, if you call it evolution, then evolution exists.

Evolution theory talks about some things that are not known to exist. It also talks about the reasons why the existence termed "evolution" exists, and why some of the things in evolution theory might exist.

They are two different things... evolution and evolution theory.

People can write all kinds of things in Wikipedia. A lot of Wikipedia is not truth. It is a good starting point, to see what a subject is about in general. But it needs to be backed up by other info before it can be known to be factual.

This is something like Quantum Physics. QP is complex probability. It always needs to be backed up by something else before it can be known to be factual.

Just because a scientific theory is often made up of some science facts, does not make the theory itself to be factual. The theory takes the facts and combines and twists them into something new that is not known to be factual until it has been proven factual.

For example. Big Bang Theory probably will never be known to be true. Why not? As good as it might sound, there is no way to go back 13 or 14 billion years to see if it is true. There is always the chance that something unforeseen might have been there to make all the best BB theory to be non-factual.

It's the same with all science theory. Until it is proven to be factual, it is just theory, even if it has the word "science" in front of it.

Blah blah, meaningless drivel

Name something in evolution "that is not known to exist"... anything at all... don't make a claim you can't back up with facts and evidence

To quote, well you... "It always needs to be backed up by something else before it can be known to be factual"

Big Bang Theory is something completely different from Evolution, and was actually invented by a Christian (do some research)

You make things up, like saying there is a difference between "evolution" and "evolution theory"... there is not... these are talking about the same thing... quit intentionally lying to people

[BADecker]

If by "science" you mean science theories, why would anyone trust them, since they have not been proven to be factual? Of course, there is a way that you can trust science theories. You can trust that they are theories until they have been proven to be factual.

It's a shame gravity is just a theory... I suppose that means there is a chance gravity doesn't exist?

See? This is where you are either mixed up, or you are not being clear intentionally. The law of gravity is not a theory. The explanation of why gravity works the way it does is the thing that is the theory.

Gravity law is law. Gravity theory is theory.

I suppose if you think gravity is "just a theory", that it doesn't affect you?

Naw, you're wrong... Both gravity and evolution are proven to be a true, factual and predictive representation of reality... which is basically what a theory means in science... learn your words

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory.

Regarding evolution, something exists. It has been termed evolution. Since the thing that exists, does indeed exist, if you call it evolution, then evolution exists.

Evolution theory talks about some things that are not known to exist. It also talks about the reasons why the existence termed "evolution" exists, and why some of the things in evolution theory might exist.

They are two different things... evolution and evolution theory.

People can write all kinds of things in Wikipedia. A lot of Wikipedia is not truth. It is a good starting point, to see what a subject is about in general. But it needs to be backed up by other info before it can be known to be factual.

This is something like Quantum Physics. QP is complex probability. It always needs to be backed up by something else before it can be known to be factual.

Just because a scientific theory is often made up of some science facts, does not make the theory itself to be factual. The theory takes the facts and combines and twists them into something new that is not known to be factual until it has been proven factual.

For example. Big Bang Theory probably will never be known to be true. Why not? As good as it might sound, there is no way to go back 13 or 14 billion years to see if it is true. There is always the chance that something unforeseen might have been there to make all the best BB theory to be non-factual.

It's the same with all science theory. Until it is proven to be factual, it is just theory, even if it has the word "science" in front of it.

Blah blah, meaningless drivel

Name something in evolution "that is not known to exist"... anything at all... don't make a claim you can't back up with facts and evidence

If it exists, it exists. If you want to cal something that exists "evolution," great. No problem. It exists whatever you call it.

Even evolution theory exists as theory. But theory means that nobody knows if it exists outside of theory. If it was known to exist outside of theory, it wouldn't be theory.

To quote, well you... "It always needs to be backed up by something else before it can be known to be factual"

The elusive "It." What's the matter? Afraid you won't be able to deceive people into thinking what you want them, to if you repeat the whole thing?

Big Bang Theory is something completely different from Evolution, and was actually invented by a Christian (do some research)

So what? Even evolution theory is completely different from evolution. The fact that theory is not known to be factual is the point, not who put the theory together.

You make things up, like saying there is a difference between "evolution" and "evolution theory"... there is not... these are talking about the same thing... quit intentionally lying to people

Wrong. There is a space and 6 letters more in "evolution theory" than there is in "evolution." Scientifically speaking, evolution theory exists as theory, while evolution without the word "theory" after it would exist as fact if it existed at all.

You can't have it both ways. Either you have found something that exists and have called it evolution, or you have not. Scientifically speaking, if evolution is not known to exist for a fact, call it what it is, evolution theory.

Perhaps you should read through that which you call meaningless drivel before you call it such.