Yea thanks for the english lesson.
Is blow me a complete a sentence, with proper word usage, and spelling?
Yea thanks for the english lesson.
Is blow me a complete a sentence, with proper word usage, and spelling?
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,908
- 10,745
- 147
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,650
- 48,358
- 136
Wow.
I'm not used to seeing that kind of stupidity or bias from an account not belonging to spidey, DSF or FNE. That's depressing, as I've seen you make some sound arguments and admirable sentiments in the past.
Wow.
I'm not used to seeing that kind of stupidity or bias from an account not belonging to spidey, DSF or FNE. That's depressing, as I've seen you make some sound arguments and admirable sentiments in the past.
Atheists and religous zealots are exactly the same. Both believe in something that explains the how this earth came into being. Atheists have a religion of science where they are the god. Religous people believe in somekind of spiritual being who chose to create the universe. Neither can be proven or disproven. But what I find strange is that it is a scientfic fact that the probability life came from the big bang by random accident is so mute, the odds of probability are infinite. Talk about having great faith.
Is that any different than a religous person believing that a supreme being created this planet, not by chance, but by design. Is Noahs Ark any more far feteched than going to the zoo and looking at some ape saying we came from that. By the way I have yet to see any vastly superior intelligent animal "evolve" from a lesser inferior animal. The earth and solar system are perfect in its design to support life on this planet. Is it more crazy to believe some entity was behind it or some random act with a mathematical probability of happening of 1 in infinite.
So who really are the crazy people?
^
Wow, you really have no idea what an Athiest is classy. When someone says they dont believe in the sky man like you do, you build a strawman as far as what they do believe.
Not believing in Gawd does not mean you believe in the "big bang." It just means you do not believe in some fairy in the sky.
Now get back to church, that basket doesnt fill itself with money!
Wow, you really have no idea what an Athiest is classy. When someone says they dont believe in the sky man like you do, you build a strawman as far as what they do believe.
Not believing in Gawd does not mean you believe in the "big bang." It just means you do not believe in some fairy in the sky.
Now get back to church, that basket doesnt fill itself with money!
Oh I get it. So you you just don't take a stand on anything. You believe in nothing, but am skeptical of everything. So you don't believe in God, the Big Bang, or nothing. So in this discussion you have no side, but instead just be a loser troll.
Classy, this may be difficult for you to understand, but an "atheist," by definition, is just the absence of theistic belief. A-theism. Get it? It doesn't mean a belief in evolution, a belief in little green men, a belief in the curative properties of toe cheese, or a believe in anything in particular. This doesn't mean that many atheists do not believe in evolution. Doubtless many, if not most of them, do. It just means that atheism itself is nothing more than a lack of belief in something that other people believe.
Incidentally, the atheist need not prove evolution. If one asserts that God exists, the burden of proof is on the person making that claim. Failing adequate evidence, the atheist's non-belief is perfectly rational, regardless of whether there is proof of an alternative theory for the existence of the universe and man or not.
- wolf
Yea Like I said, don't take a stand on anything. And who says its rational? Another atheist?
What a smug, self-important douche. Bill Maher on the other hand is pretty spot on about this whole situation
Who says it's rational?
Let's take a hypothetical here. If I assert the existence of oh, say, a flying spaghetti monster, you're probably going to demand proof that such a thing exists before you accept it, right? And if I fail to produce that evidence, your non-belief in the flying spaghetti monster is rational, because logically, one who asserts the existence of a thing must produce evidence of the existence of said thing.
- wolf
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,650
- 48,358
- 136
That's simply not true classy, please tell me this is really just a parody post. You don't possess some grand formula that all atheists and their beliefs adhere too, and your opinions on evolution make it clear that you have very little understanding of the issue. That's pretty impressive given that evolution and the misinformation that critics spread about it have both been documented on this forum ad nauseum. Tells me that whatever is spelled out for you here is a waste of time, and that you do indeed have a chip on your shoulder concerning atheists. You expect the world around you to conform to your views (like expecting to observe evolution in person) yet you can't bring yourself to gain even the most cursory understanding of evolution (sometime that could take mere minutes of hours, YMMV) because you've already decided you disagree with it. Where have I seen this before?
Seriously, when did you decide to go Southern Baptist batshit crazy on us? The strawmen, assumptions, and complete falsehoods you've provided are all young earth creationist talking points that have been blown out of the water more times than I can count. You do yourself a disservice by repeating them.
- Jul 2, 2004
- 3,492
- 1
- 81
- Jul 2, 2004
- 3,492
- 1
- 81
PJABBER
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Though I am coming late to this discussion and won't bother to read the whole thread, I will stand with Classy in his argument.
To say that you don't know what caused the creation of the universe or life is the position taken by an agnostic. The argument is a negative one that stems from an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or insight.
To say that you know the universe and/or life was not created by God is the position taken by an atheist. Here we have a positive affirmation of an unprovable or unlikely to be proved cause or non-cause. Stating that you do not believe in the existence of divinity does not prove or disprove whether divinity really exists. This is a belief system, a variation of faith, the same kind of faith that a religious holds and often just as extreme, else one would be an agnostic.
As Classy has tried to explain, the faith an atheist may have in science still remains a belief - in method, in observation, in humanism. We all know that scientific observation is fallible or inadequate, knowledge evolves constantly. So to have a belief in the current science is to stand on quicksand.
To say that you believe God created the universe or life poses the same burden of proof as the atheist has in his belief system. But here one can state that the nature of divinity is by definition unknowable as man is mortal and not divine and therefore is not privy to all knowledge. Which is somehow comforting to many as they can refer a mysticism that intercedes when needed, or not.
I challenge any of the self-deferential atheist here to create a single atom out of nothing. Too hard? How about if you make a single life form out of nothing, that should be a lot easier. Still no takers?
The limitation we all have, no matter what you believe or don't, is in understanding creation. Something coming from nothing, or something else. Until you get that right everything else is just speculation on inexact observation.
To say that you don't know what caused the creation of the universe or life is the position taken by an agnostic. The argument is a negative one that stems from an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or insight.
To say that you know the universe and/or life was not created by God is the position taken by an atheist. Here we have a positive affirmation of an unprovable or unlikely to be proved cause or non-cause. Stating that you do not believe in the existence of divinity does not prove or disprove whether divinity really exists. This is a belief system, a variation of faith, the same kind of faith that a religious holds and often just as extreme, else one would be an agnostic.
As Classy has tried to explain, the faith an atheist may have in science still remains a belief - in method, in observation, in humanism. We all know that scientific observation is fallible or inadequate, knowledge evolves constantly. So to have a belief in the current science is to stand on quicksand.
To say that you believe God created the universe or life poses the same burden of proof as the atheist has in his belief system. But here one can state that the nature of divinity is by definition unknowable as man is mortal and not divine and therefore is not privy to all knowledge. Which is somehow comforting to many as they can refer a mysticism that intercedes when needed, or not.
I challenge any of the self-deferential atheist here to create a single atom out of nothing. Too hard? How about if you make a single life form out of nothing, that should be a lot easier. Still no takers?
The limitation we all have, no matter what you believe or don't, is in understanding creation. Something coming from nothing, or something else. Until you get that right everything else is just speculation on inexact observation.
Last edited:
I'm afraid you don't understand what an atheist actually is. An atheist isn't necessarily one who "knows the universe and/or life was not created by God." That is a common straw man put forward by theists. While some atheists may assert that they "know" this or that, the basis of atheism is non-belief in something not proven. I explained quite adequately in my example above regarding the flying spaghetti monster. It doesn't really matter what it is we are talking about actually, whether it is God, time machines, or flying spaghetti monsters. There is no rational basis to believe in anything which is not proven.
The only difference between this and the agnostic is that the agnostic says, "there is no evidence either way so I'm not sure." Frankly, it's more a difference in semantics than anything else.
Atheists who go beyond the basic assertion of non-belief based on a lack of evidence are claiming that they can prove the negative, i.e. the non-existence of God. They are then taking on a burden of proof for themselves, and they may be practicing some sort of faith. By that isn't definitional atheism. It's simply an additional road that some atheists travel and if they open themselves up to criticism for doing so, that is their problem.
- wolf
The entire earth and solar system are proof God exist. You live in a perfectly designed world and solar system that even the most staunch evolution believers admit the probability of this being an accident run 1 in a number almost infinite.
- classy
- Jul 2, 2004
- 3,492
- 1
- 81
We live in a universe that is large enough to support the possibility of such an accident.
Well science agrees with you like 1 in 10^1000000000
And there is zero proof to support that theory. Where is the other planets like earth. Show me one anyone has found.
And when you look at things in truth, there is also a possibility of a supreme being. The odds can't be much worse.
Again, the resident mouth-breather points to other people's theories, instead of explaining why his theory stands on it's own merits.
It doesn't matter what others believe, what you believe is ignorant, childish, and a fairy tale.
If you feel I am incorrect about your beliefs, please defend them by explaining why they are correct, not by explaining why other beliefs are incorrect.
I'll start with some easy ones:
A person coming back to life after three days
A person rounding up two of every animal on a ship, with enough food and fresh water to support them, and none of them eat each other (we are still discovering species all of the time, so Noah must have had some magic to find them all and put them on a boat).
OK......Go!
It doesn't matter what others believe, what you believe is ignorant, childish, and a fairy tale.
If you feel I am incorrect about your beliefs, please defend them by explaining why they are correct, not by explaining why other beliefs are incorrect.
I'll start with some easy ones:
A person coming back to life after three days
A person rounding up two of every animal on a ship, with enough food and fresh water to support them, and none of them eat each other (we are still discovering species all of the time, so Noah must have had some magic to find them all and put them on a boat).
OK......Go!
Last edited:
There is no other explanation for our existence besides there being God. None. Science can't explain it. And the best odds they come up with is next to impossible. Everything necessary to support life in total perfection is on this rock. Even the damn solar system is aligned in such a way that even perfect gravity is here. The sun and moon are perfect distances away to support life here on this rock. The design is just to perfect to be an accident. You may be in the right to criticize religion, but to dismiss the idea of the possibility of there being God is just foolish.
And what do you believe? You are big on criticizing everyone else, but to cowardly to say what you believe.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,825
- 6,374
- 126
I, the Omnipotent Creator who Created everything 5 minutes ago including your Memories, command you to worship me and forsake your false god. PS: Also send $49.99
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter