Thread: Question about atheists

> Kent Hovind,

I love this guy - my gf's roomate at school had a bunch of his stuff.

its a book clyde. referenced by codegirl. And calm down.

Why don't you just not read threads that are going to involve religion or politics? What exactly did you think this thread would be about? Chicken soup?

under that rational, we could just eliminate all the other forums and join them into one. Then we can just go by the thread titles! wouldn't that be great?!?

>>> Kent Hovind,

That's the guy from that DrDino site yes? Man, I just was browsing over there, my sides are still aching! Whoever it is put that together simply has not got a clue have they?!?!

Whenever I need a laugh, I'll pop back.

its a book clyde. referenced by codegirl. And calm down

Oh i see, i think i've come across it before 2 years ago..... but its a vague memory. I suspect i will have heard the arguments before but i may well look it up if i have the opportunity.

under that rational, we could just eliminate all the other forums and join them into one. Then we can just go by the thread titles! wouldn't that be great?!?

If all threads were posted in one forum threads would disappear too quickly, and you would have to search pages and pages back for the post you wanted, presumeably thats why separate forums are created.

I don't think the number of political/religious threads is so large that its an issue with GD. Have you lost sight of any threads, because of a glut or religous/political threads?

Besides i like reading the polical threads, a big part of the reason i like this forum is because there are a lot of informed smart people, and i like hearing the views of informed smart people on non-light-hearted subjects.

And well i like debating the religious ones for several reasons no doubt one of them is because i just like debating, but it also clarifies ideas in your mind, shows you how other people think, makes you better at debating, better able to phrase arguments, more convincing, etc. Those are usefull skills. It also makes me look stuff up, my grasp of evolutionary theory would undoubtedly have waned much faster if i hadn't had to argue with creationists.

Plus you never know who is reading, maybe occasionally political/religious threads do change people's opinions, or atleast challenge them, I think its good to challenge people's beliefs about politics, about religion, about everything really, make them think.

Thinking is good.

> Also, i would like to say that Christianity never comes in contrast with science.

How old is the world? How long did it take the earth to be created?

> Extremely difficult

Hey, good for you.

> But, nothing can stop an atheist from killing his neghbour.

No, I'm pretty sure the law tells me that. Plus, I'm a generally nice guy - I'd like to think that as a nice guy, I don't kill people indiscriminately, whether I believe in invisible kangaroos or not. But now that you've told me how I should think, there was a guy in the hall that looked at me in a way I didn't like. I'm gonna go stab him.

edit: I'm back - man, that was easy and liberating. I'm glad that, as an atheist, I'm totally immune to having any moral whatsoever!

>>> i would like to say that Christianity never comes in contrast with science.

Ahhh, thousands of Spanish Inquisitors cannot be wrong - lovely to hear the old arguments reverbing around isn't it.

didaskalos:

I like where you live. Interestingly though, we have a number of banned user accounts from there.

>Chicken soup?

Oh, wait. I actually saw the chicken ! Touched it ! How is that for a religious theory ? I actually have living proof of IT's existance !
I'll go write a book about that chicken so people can worship it the next twothousand years...

uhm... yeah, back on topic...


I believe in [X], therefore [X] must be true.

Insert "The existance of God" for religious people.
Insert "The absence of a higher being" for atheists.

Neither can prove their point using normal logic, because this is not possible. Both parties belief. Both call it the absolute truth.

Challenge to the believers: Prove your theory.

Please note a very simple logical rule: You have to prove your claim. Just because the other side can't prove the contrary doesn't mean your point is correct.

Seems that Sunlight was the only agnostic besides me... *sigh*

> Seems that Sunlight was the only agnostic besides me... *sigh*

Nope.

edit: I realize I come off as an atheist, but I'm really not. I'll refute stupid arguments from both sides, if they're presented. Honestly, though - what are Clyde, novacain, and adrian going to give me to refute?

No buddy. It's not God's fault that there is so much unjust and crime in the world. Humans can choose how to behave. People are free to do whatever they want to do. And unfortunetely, most of us prefer the easier way of unjustice

The argument doesn't work on several levels:

1) Free-will contradicts gods omniscience since it means he cant fortell the future - if the future exists free will cannot, if the future does not exist God cannot know it.

2) Freewill doesn't solve anything, because if God was infinitely powerfull, and infinitely blah blah, then we would all be perfect people, perfect people with choice but still perfect people: There are some choices we have that we never make, or rather an extremely small number of people make them, take eating al your meals with your toes, met many people who do that? No, and yet theoretically they could choose to, but its in our nature not to, correspondingly if God was all he's meant to be, our nature would not include being total ****s half the time.

3) It fails to account for problems that have nothing to do with mankind like disease, what kind of bastard God put alzheimers in the world?

No buddy. You could only say this, only if Christianity told to science to stop researching because the answer is God. But it doesn't

It is no longer able to control research because it no longer has the power, when it did have the power it did hamper research and scientific advancement, Galileo, Darwin, etc.

Even though it now lacks that power, it still screws up scientific education and so in that sense it still damages science: see evolution, age of Earth, etc.

Firstly, we encourage scientists to make researches and find out more, as i said previously.

Who is "we"? The Fundy's certainly do not.

Some Scientists say , for example, that universe "came from" the Big Bang - not everybody agrees here

Everyone agreeing doesn't really matter, what matters is the best bet, and the best bet is the big bang. As far as i'm aware its taken with a fair degree of certainty these days, given how far they can track back with background radiation.

Then they can't explain how that ball was created, and they can't go on, but they know that it was created from something and that it didn't existed all the time

... i have addressed this already.

However this balls might never existed, and the planets were creates as "we know them today".

Unless an intelligent agent has placed all the evidence to lead to the contrary that seems impossible.

What i wanted to say, is that if you find Christians lucky as i "imaginied" previously you 'r doing a very big mistake.
Do you know how difficult is to be a Christian??

Well i know af ew Christians they don't seem to struggle with life.

Off course i am not talking about all those who wre baptised Christians, but for those who are true Christians.

Everyone has their own definition of the "true" Christian, or the "true" Muslim, or the "true" whatever.

Do you know how difficult is to resist to craft thoughts? And generally to all those temptations? Extremely difficult.

Whats are craft thoughts?

edit:

For example, a real Christian will say that he can't kill his neighbour, because God says no. But, nothing can stop an atheist from killing his neghbour

Then why is it that atheists in general do not go about killing their neighbours?

> Whats are craft thoughts?


Like the impulse to start weaving a basket.

I believe in [X], therefore [X] must be true.

Insert "The existance of God" for religious people.
Insert "The absence of a higher being" for atheists.

Neither can prove their point using normal logic, because this is not possible. Both parties belief. Both call it the absolute truth.

Challenge to the believers: Prove your theory.

Please note a very simple logical rule: You have to prove your claim. Just because the other side can't prove the contrary doesn't mean your point is correct.

Your logic is flawed:

1) There is no such thing as proof.

2) It is impossible to collect direct evidence for a lack of a God, non-Gods do not leave evidence, it is only possible to infer things from the world, e.g. does this world indicate a infintely powerfully infitely wise infitely blah designer, well obviously not, because its shot to hell

3) You cannot claim that I believe in X, and I don't believe in X, are equally valid when neither has any evidence to back them up. The only sane way we have of determining what is real is based upon positive evidence, not lack of negative evidence.

If we followed your reasoning we would conclude that the man who believes in floating invisible kangaroos is as likely to be correct as the man who doesn't, that the man who believes in Santa Claus is as likely to be right as the man who doesn't, that a man who believes that a herd of elephants are going to materialise above his head and trample him to death is as reasonably balanced as people who do not live in constant fear of elephant death.

Its absurd and you know it is, apply the same reasoning you apply to belief in invisible elephants or talking radiators to God and you will see him fade into nonsense.

>>> going to give me to refute?

The right to rot and return your ill-begotten nutrients to the soil.