Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Questions Atheists Can't Answer

So, Ray Comfort has a new blog posting that I think is interesting. In it, he makes a list of 10 questions which he claims that atheists can't answer. Check it out:

1. What was in the beginning?
2. How will life on earth end?
3. What happens after death?
4. What is the purpose of existence?
5. Why is there order in all of creation?
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
9. How did nothing create everything?
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?

Now if you're like me, you do have answers to some of these questions, and science is hot on the trail of answers to others, but that's not important for the purposes of this post.

What is important about it then? It's the fact that Ray has clearly implied (although he probably thinks once again that he's been too slick and tactful for us to notice his implication) that because we can't answer questions as atheists, and that he can answer them as a Young-Earth creationist retard, that he and his view somehow have an advantage over atheists and their views.

This is, in my opinion, the root of how religions got started in the first place, and why they have existed in almost(?) all cultures and civilisations. It's because there are many people out there, like Ray Comfort, who think it's a bad thing to say, "I don't know". If we don't know, and he has any answer at all to the question, then he is superior and we should follow him. Right?

But here's the thing. Some of us actually care whether or not our answers are TRUE! We don't like to make stuff up just so that we can give an answer, and we would feel embarrassed if we gave a ridiculously inaccurate response to a question. The fact that he has no proof, nor even a little evidence, at all to support his theory, makes his response LESS VALID than the person who admits he doesn't know.

In Ray's eyes, it would be better for me to make up my own religion, in which I claim that the answer to any question of origins is to say, "The colour red did it. Without red, there would be nothing. Praise red!" That would make me better than a dirty atheist, because as we have learned, belief in ANY god is better than a belief in none.

But Ray obviously gets comfort (oh, I'm such a clever pun-making guy) from holding on to his ridiculous mythological beliefs, so much so that even when science does answer a question, he refuses to abandon his old belief. That's why he's a Young-Earth creationist retard.

You can read Ray's original post here, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. ;-)

114 comments:

MaikUniversum said...

Nice article :)

Anonymous said...

Atheist and their ideaology is the most irrational belief ever. Whoever believes that We and everything came into existence out of random luck in such preciseness has definitely not got sound intellect. Atheist always want proof that God exists, as their blind to not see the creation is proof of a Higher power, since mankind certainly did not organise the universe, the distance are planet is set from the sun, the time in which it takes the earth to rotate around its own axis, imagine the earth rotated around its axis really slow that it took 5 years for a rotation to occur. What then would have been the outcome? How about the gasses that constitute our atmosphere in their precise measurements? Or the Ozone layer shields us from the harmful ultraviolet sun rays that would damage life on earth? All this out of mere luck, out of chaos spontaneously order was implemented in preciseness. Show me on Earth today an explosion that spontaneously brought about order, without the need for order to be imposed?
God The Creator says it is He who Created Life and Death. Now I challenge the Atheist to disprove God wrong and create life, just create one living thing, infact not even an organism, create a cell, not clone cells, create one. Or if you can't do that disprove God wrong by living forever, as God also says 'Every sould shall taste death.'

Mock as much as you like calling God a Fairy or God of the Gaps, and all the other name calling, but at the end of the day you and I are going to Die and that is a fact (unless you can disprove God wrong), and if you really believe our purpose of existence was just to have sex and pleasure/ reproduce then think again... because when your appointed time reaches you neither can you delay it nor beyond it, do you think we would not be held accountable for our deeds? And if you are correct when death approaches me I have nothing to lose...

Feki said...

which god are you exactly talking about? the psycho one with the personality disorder? or the misogynous one that promises 70 virgins in the afterlife?

Whatever god you believe in, it seems to say a lot of things. Does he whisper in your ear? or does he leave messages in your voicemail? For some reason I can't hear it, or see it. Maybe I just need to smoke some crack.

Anyway, your Higher Power created nothing because it only exists in your delusional mind.

Yes, someday you and I will die but by then you will have spent thousands of hours/dollars believing in fairy tales, for nothing. :)

Anonymous said...

Like I said mock Feki, because that is all that Atheists seem to do. They can't answer rationally and disprove God, and proof to me or the rest of the world that Atheism is the truth. Thus they result to insults, mocking, and all sorts, but at the end of the day it does not leave doubt in me nor most people, but it just makes me look at you guys more and more stupid.

You say God created nothing and I am delusional. But when I come to you for enlightenment you have no answers and everything is mere luck and randomness, like I said Atheism is the MOST irrational of all beliefs as it expects us to believe that something came from nothing, let alone the order we find in this universe... Your in denial.

Like I said disprove God by creating life, or preventing death... It should not be that difficult since you believe there is no Higher power whatsoever, then we should be able to do it!

Until then keep your mocking rants to yourself, as it does not reinforce your claims neither does it put doubt in my belief.

And either way when I die if I am wrong (for certainty I aint) then I still have nothing to lose. Who cares If I've spent my wealth or my hours in giving charity, praying, keeping ties with kin, striving to do good and refraining from doing sins, who cares, when I am dead I'm dead, and I would have no recollection of how I spent my life on earth, regretting, wishing I had done opposite as I've done everything for nothing. Like I said I have nothing to lose with no regrets. But that is just hypothetical speaking, as I know with certainty that there is a Creator, so when you die your going to have a harsh reality facing you with many regretts and remembrance of what you used to do. Again you may mock... but it would be more advisable for you to mock once you can disprove God and prevent Death from occuring to you, otherwise 50, 60, or 70 years is not a long time considering the hereafter is eternal.

Admin said...

OK Anonymous poster, here goes:

"Atheist always want proof that God exists, as their blind to not see the creation is proof of a Higher power..."

Why?

"since mankind certainly did not organise the universe, the distance are planet is set from the sun, the time in which it takes the earth to rotate around its own axis, imagine the earth rotated around its axis really slow that it took 5 years for a rotation to occur. What then would have been the outcome?"

So? Life might be different in that case. What does that prove? There are lots of planets out there, and we came about on one which is suitable for us. Should the water in a swimming pool remark about how amazing it is that it is perfectly shaped for the pool? Humans didn't have to be the life that arose. Do you understand that?

"How about the gasses that constitute our atmosphere in their precise measurements?"

I'm sorry, WHAT precise measurements? We have a fairly wide range of gas mixtures we'd be able to survive in. There is nothing precise about it.

"Show me on Earth today an explosion that spontaneously brought about order, without the need for order to be imposed?"

This doesn't make sense.

"God The Creator says it is He who Created Life and Death."

Yeah, says you.

"Now I challenge the Atheist to disprove God wrong and create life, just create one living thing, infact not even an organism, create a cell, not clone cells, create one. Or if you can't do that disprove God wrong by living forever, as God also says 'Every sould shall taste death.'"

You don't understand how proving things works, do you? You can't usually disprove the existence of something. That's why it's up to people like yourself to prove that it does exist. Look up "burden of proof". And what's with the death thing? Are you suggesting that without a god, we'd live forever? That it takes gods to make death? That life doesn't naturally die? What the fuck is that? I've never heard anything like that before. So if we live forever (how would we even prove that we were living forever? It's unfalsifiable.), then gods don't exist? What about other gods besides yours? You know, ones that didn't say every soul (prove there is a soul) will taste death? You're really bad at this. Do you know why we insult your intellect? And I think if you knew how close science is to creating life in the lab, you'd keep your mouth/keyboard shut.

(continued next post)

Admin said...

"Mock as much as you like calling God a Fairy or God of the Gaps, and all the other name calling..."

Fine, we will.

"but at the end of the day you and I are going to Die and that is a fact (unless you can disprove God wrong)..."

You're making that argument AGAIN? Seriously? So natural life doesn't die, eh? That would be an interesting paper to get published.

"and if you really believe our purpose of existence was just to have sex and pleasure/ reproduce then think again."

No, we didn't say that. Strawman argument.

"because when your appointed time reaches you neither can you delay it nor beyond it, do you think we would not be held accountable for our deeds?"

You might have "deeds" that need somebody to be held accountable for, but I don't. And I resent you accusing me of having done such deeds. This is why we don't like you.

"And if you are correct when death approaches me I have nothing to lose..."

Ah, Pascal's Wager. Nice. There are several ways you can lose.

1. You've already lost your sanity.

2. You've chosen the wrong god, which pisses the real god off more than people who chose no god at all, like us. You're going to pay for that.

3. A god gave you a brain, for thinking. You have refused to use it, choosing to believe in the fairy tale of Christianity/Judaism/Islam. That angers the gods, as you are rejecting the gift of intelligence. You'll pay for that.

"Like I said mock Feki..."

I don't want to mock Feki, I want to mock you.

"They can't answer rationally and disprove God, and proof to me or the rest of the world that Atheism is the truth."

No such proof is required or even possible. Check 'burden of proof' again.

"Thus they result to insults, mocking, and all sorts, but at the end of the day it does not leave doubt in me nor most people, but it just makes me look at you guys more and more stupid."

Yes, we mock grown adults who believe in fairy tales.

"But when I come to you for enlightenment you have no answers and everything is mere luck and randomness, like I said Atheism is the MOST irrational of all beliefs as it expects us to believe that something came from nothing, let alone the order we find in this universe... Your in denial."

OK Dude, your grammar sucks. Sorry, but it's true. We never said luck and randomness, that's another strawman argument. It's a logical fallacy. Ah, so we believe that something came from nothing, but you don't? So your god came from where?

"Like I said disprove God by creating life, or preventing death..."

AGAIN? Crap, dude, you suck.

"It should not be that difficult since you believe there is no Higher power whatsoever, then we should be able to do it!"

Wait.... so if we believe there's no higher power, then we should be able to prevent death? What the fuck is wrong with you? You really don't understand why we're mocking you?

"And either way when I die if I am wrong (for certainty I aint) then I still have nothing to lose."

Oh, you've got a lot to potentially lose. You've just never thought about it very much.

"Who cares If I've spent my wealth or my hours in giving charity, praying, keeping ties with kin, striving to do good..."

Holy crap, you're right! I never give to charity, have no ties with kin, and never do good things! I need a god! But when you do sin, it's easy to be forgiven, right? Why be good when you can be forgiven?

"I know with certainty that there is a Creator..."

With certainty, eh? So you can prove it? If not, you don't know jack, you just believe.

"Again you may mock... but it would be more advisable for you to mock once you can disprove God and prevent Death from occuring to you..."

You're a fucking moron.

Admin said...

The death thing...... the fact that damn near all of Genesis and the first books of the Bible have been proven wrong doesn't faze you at all? There will always be SOMETHING in the bible that has never been proven wrong, and you'll continue to hide behind those, while the rest collapses around you before the power of scientific inquiry and overwhelming evidence. You've set yourself up to NEVER stop believing, NO MATTER WHAT. This is another reason why we mock you. So go ahead, hide behind your quote about everybody dying eventually. I can tell you right now that it will NEVER be proven wrong, because it's completely unfalsifiable (it would take an infinitely long amount of time to prove, and therefore is impossible), so you're perfectly safe to hide in fear there with your belief in your imaginary friend.

Admin said...

To clarify, please tell me why the accounts in all holy books of the origins of the Universe, Earth and life have already been proven wrong, but your god has not been disproved by that, yet if we could prove that this quote is wrong, that it WOULD disprove gods? I call bullshit on you! You'll just hide behind a new quote, like I said above.

And FYI, if we DID begin to live forever, it would NOT disprove the existence of gods. You have a very weak grasp of how things are proven. I suggest you don't embarrass yourself further.

Anonymous said...

So the Admin wants to straighten the matter out. Okay. I am going to respond to you, but this is going to be my last response, as I have no time to be debating whether God exists, with Atheist who are insincere and would still deny the existence of God even if He made a miracle befall right before their eyes, they’d say it’s trickery or what not and still reject. Like I said before, and again Atheism is the most irrational belief there is. Debating with an Atheist is like debating with some one that is ignorant, you never get anywhere and you don’t win. As the ignorant one ends up name calling, has no knowledge and jumps topic.

I said:
"Atheist always want proof that God exists, as their blind to not see the creation is proof of a Higher power...

"since mankind certainly did not organise the universe, the distance are planet is set from the sun, the time in which it takes the earth to rotate around its own axis, imagine the earth rotated around its axis really slow that it took 5 years for a rotation to occur. What then would have been the outcome?"

Admin replied back saying:
“So? Life might be different in that case. What does that prove? There are lots of planets out there, and we came about on one which is suitable for us. Should the water in a swimming pool remark about how amazing it is that it is perfectly shaped for the pool? Humans didn't have to be the life that arose. Do you understand that?”

Admin, what I am trying to show is that this universe is in an organised fashion. It is not luck that it came into existence in its exact manner. Contemplate and tell me what the probability of the universe is with all its characteristics coming into existence out of chance? Without a Maker, a Designer, an Organiser. The study of the universe itself is outstanding and amazing and to believe it initiated out of mere luck, and from that luck came more luck to our existence today then you really are deaf, dumb and blind. Clearly, looking at the universe and the way it is organised there is intellect behind its existence not mere luck.

And by you saying “There are lots of planets out there, and we came about on one which is suitable for us.” You just basically add to my point. Now you tell me, why out of all the planets out there the only planet that is suitable for us is situated the 3rd planet from the sun? Why not 1st, 2nd, 4th etc.? Why 3rd? Is it luck again, that it is situated at a distance from the sun where it is neither too cold, nor too hot for living creatures to exist?

Then you went on about water in swimming pools, and then said “Humans didn't have to be the life that arose. Do you understand that?” Frankly, I don’t. Humans as well as other forms of life exist on this earth. If not humans then what other life may have arose? You tell me. Am I supposed to wonder what other life God could have put on this earth instead of what already exists?

I said:
"How about the gasses that constitutes our atmosphere in their precise measurements?"

Admin replied back saying:
“I'm sorry, WHAT precise measurements? We have a fairly wide range of gas mixtures we'd be able to survive in. There is nothing precise about it.”

Admin.... let me be patient with you. Instead of answering your question and showing you how you do not know what you’re talking about by saying “There is nothing precise about it,” I am going to ask you questions and if you research the answers, you would understand what I mean by ‘precise measurement.’

1)What are the main gases in the atmosphere required to survive?
2)What are the measurements/volume/concentration levels of these gases within the atmosphere?

3)Now tell me, why are these atmospheric gases at exact measurements? Why not more, or less? What would happen if it were more or less?

Anonymous said...

So the Admin wants to straighten the matter out. Okay. I am going to respond to you, but this is going to be my last response, as I have no time to be debating whether God exists, with Atheist who are insincere and would still deny the existence of God even if He made a miracle befall right before their eyes, they’d say it’s trickery or what not and still reject. Like I said before, and again Atheism is the most irrational belief there is. Debating with an Atheist is like debating with some one that is ignorant, you never get anywhere and you don’t win. As the ignorant one ends up name calling, has no knowledge and jumps topic.

I said:
"Atheist always want proof that God exists, as their blind to not see the creation is proof of a Higher power...

"since mankind certainly did not organise the universe, the distance are planet is set from the sun, the time in which it takes the earth to rotate around its own axis, imagine the earth rotated around its axis really slow that it took 5 years for a rotation to occur. What then would have been the outcome?"

Admin replied back saying:
“So? Life might be different in that case. What does that prove? There are lots of planets out there, and we came about on one which is suitable for us. Should the water in a swimming pool remark about how amazing it is that it is perfectly shaped for the pool? Humans didn't have to be the life that arose. Do you understand that?”

Admin, what I am trying to show is that this universe is in an organised fashion. It is not luck that it came into existence in its exact manner. Contemplate and tell me what the probability of the universe is with all its characteristics coming into existence out of chance? Without a Maker, a Designer, an Organiser. The study of the universe itself is outstanding and amazing and to believe it initiated out of mere luck, and from that luck came more luck to our existence today then you really are deaf, dumb and blind. Clearly, looking at the universe and the way it is organised there is intellect behind its existence not mere luck.

And by you saying “There are lots of planets out there, and we came about on one which is suitable for us.” You just basically add to my point. Now you tell me, why out of all the planets out there the only planet that is suitable for us is situated the 3rd planet from the sun? Why not 1st, 2nd, 4th etc.? Why 3rd? Is it luck again, that it is situated at a distance from the sun where it is neither too cold, nor too hot for living creatures to exist?

Then you went on about water in swimming pools, and then said “Humans didn't have to be the life that arose. Do you understand that?” Frankly, I don’t. Humans as well as other forms of life exist on this earth. If not humans then what other life may have arose? You tell me. Am I supposed to wonder what other life God could have put on this earth instead of what already exists?

I said:
"How about the gasses that constitutes our atmosphere in their precise measurements?"

Admin replied back saying:
“I'm sorry, WHAT precise measurements? We have a fairly wide range of gas mixtures we'd be able to survive in. There is nothing precise about it.”

Admin.... let me be patient with you. Instead of answering your question and showing you how you do not know what you’re talking about by saying “There is nothing precise about it,” I am going to ask you questions and if you research the answers, you would understand what I mean by ‘precise measurement.’

1)What are the main gases in the atmosphere required to survive?
2)What are the measurements/volume/concentration levels of these gases within the atmosphere?

3)Now tell me, why are these atmospheric gases at exact measurements? Why not more, or less? What would happen if it were more or less?

Anonymous said...

Hopefully if you research the answers to those questions, you might understand my initial question. It all goes back to what I was saying before, how everything is in an organised fashion, thus there MUST be a Fashioner, a Designer, an Organizer.


I said:
"Show me on Earth today an explosion that spontaneously brought about order, without the need for order to be imposed?"

Admin replied:
“This doesn't make sense.”

I know it doesn’t make sense. But that is the thinking of Atheists. Look at the Big Bang Theory, a singularity that rapidly expanded developing the universe in seconds whilst spontaneously bringing about order within the universe, without the need for order to be imposed i.e. a Creator. Now if that is so, did the singularity (a compression of all the matter, energy and space in an area of zero volume and infinite density) have intelligence and intellect of its own for it to be able to do that?

Also the expansion of the universe from a singularity only explains the development of the universe, but it does not explain the origin of the universe. You tell me Admin, what initiated the creation of the universe? What caused the singularity to come into existence? How did it come into existence?

Now I say, it was The Creator; who is able to do all things. But you reject that, so you tell me the answers, you can’t reject and ridicule my answer without providing a better one.


I said:
“God The Creator says it is He who Created Life and Death."

"Now I challenge the Atheist to disprove God wrong and create life, just create one living thing, infact not even an organism, create a cell, not clone cells, create one. Or if you can't do that disprove God wrong by living forever, as God also says 'Every soul shall taste death.'"

Admin replied:
“Yeah, says you.”

“You don't understand how proving things works, do you? You can't usually disprove the existence of something. That's why it's up to people like yourself to prove that it does exist. Look up "burden of proof". And what's with the death thing? Are you suggesting that without a god, we'd live forever? That it takes gods to make death? That life doesn't naturally die? What the fuck is that? I've never heard anything like that before. So if we live forever (how would we even prove that we were living forever? It's unfalsifiable.), then gods don't exist? What about other gods besides yours? You know, ones that didn't say every soul (prove there is a soul) will taste death? You're really bad at this. Do you know why we insult your intellect? And I think if you knew how close science is to creating life in the lab, you'd keep your mouth/keyboard shut.”

Admin fine, I say God the Creator says it is He who created Life and Death. If it makes you feel better prove me wrong as to what I claim.
Let me put it this way, until you can give me a rational answer as to all my questions, every single one of them, including what initiated the creation of the universe? AND what is our purpose of existence? As frankly, I don’t believe that we exist just to have sex and reproduce, and that is our sole purpose. That is just a form of survival, like eating, drinking, and excretion is, but not our purpose of existence. Until then, I am going to believe God exists. All these questions, I ask you, my religion gives me the answers, and my religion is not man-made it is from God. That is of course another, discussion, no point with you. So I am not in doubt, but if you can’t answer the questions then so be it, just don’t expect me to take heed to what Atheist ever have to say again. People, who mock religions and God, but have no answers to questions religion provides answers to.

Now disprove what I claim ‘God says that He created Life and Death.’ Disprove it by creating life or preventing death, either one would do.

Anonymous said...

Admin by saying “if you knew how close science is to creating life in the lab, you'd keep your mouth/keyboard shut,” What life is that? Synthetic life is not considered life. Neither is cloning.

And also by saying “Are you suggesting that without a god, we'd live forever? That it takes gods to make death? That life doesn't naturally die? What the fuck is that? I've never heard anything like that before.” Then you continue “You're really bad at this. Do you know why we insult your intellect?”

Again let me have patience with you... If you read my initial statement I said, God says ‘it is He who created Life and Death.’ Notice I said ‘Life’ as well as ‘Death.’ So by asking me ‘are you suggesting that without a god, we’d live forever?’ is a nonsensical question. Admin if I am bad at this, then you’re terrible. You lack simple understanding, and then you jump to all sorts of conclusions that would not have been necessary if you had comprehended what I said initially. Yeah, I think I do know why you insult my intellect because you are ignorant. That is all ignorant people are good at is insulting, as they have no knowledge to withstand a discussion. Eventually the one with knowledge gives up, and it appears that the ignorant one has defeated him.

Then you ask “What about other gods besides yours? You know, ones that didn't say every soul (prove there is a soul) will taste death?”

There is no true deity besides God. Ofcourse, God has attributes, and all deities that are called upon besides God neither have the power to harm or benefit you. What I am saying is, despite the fact that there are many gods out there; there is only one true God, and it is easy to distinguish between them if one is sincerely seeking the truth. Nonetheless, if there are gods (I don’t know of any) that claim the opposite to ‘every soul will taste death’ then surely they are WRONG, as we all do die. And the followers of such a god are wasting their time.

As for the soul not much is known to us about it. The soul is something created by God, just like everything else. The knowledge regarding its true essence is something that belongs exclusively to God. As God also tells us that the soul is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with Him, and of knowledge mankind have been given only a little. But one of the things we do know about the soul is that it is blown into the foetus, in the womb of the mother when it is 120 days old by the will of God. This is when the foetus becomes a living creature. Ofcourse to Atheist, this is all rubbish, but the reason why I mention it is because if you want to disprove God, all you have to do is create human life. Not only would that disprove the need of a soul, it would also disprove God of being the Creator of Life.

By me saying ‘disprove God by creating Life or preventing Death,’ is not crap and does not suck. It is simple and clear to understand, but it is something that is impossible for you to do. Ofcourse, if you can do it, Atheism would have stronger grounds and religions generally would be demolished. I notice you keep focusing on the ‘death’ part, but there are two options there, so if you feel you cannot prevent death from occurring, then you can always create life.


“Seriously? So natural life doesn't die, eh?”

Of course it does, because God wills it to. What don’t you understand? I am not suggesting we wouldn’t die. I know we would die. But for the millionth time all I am saying is God says He gives life, and causes us to die. So as you are an Atheist, and you disbelieve in God, bring some hard evidence to the table to disprove God by either creating Life or preventing Death. Atheist should be able to disprove everything God says, since they don’t believe He exists. I am not going to explain this to you again, if you don’t understand it from here, then you are really slow.

Anonymous said...

Admin by saying “if you knew how close science is to creating life in the lab, you'd keep your mouth/keyboard shut,” What life is that? Synthetic life is not considered life. Neither is cloning.

And also by saying “Are you suggesting that without a god, we'd live forever? That it takes gods to make death? That life doesn't naturally die? What the fuck is that? I've never heard anything like that before.” Then you continue “You're really bad at this. Do you know why we insult your intellect?”

Again let me have patience with you... If you read my initial statement I said, God says ‘it is He who created Life and Death.’ Notice I said ‘Life’ as well as ‘Death.’ So by asking me ‘are you suggesting that without a god, we’d live forever?’ is a nonsensical question. Admin if I am bad at this, then you’re terrible. You lack simple understanding, and then you jump to all sorts of conclusions that would not have been necessary if you had comprehended what I said initially. Yeah, I think I do know why you insult my intellect because you are ignorant. That is all ignorant people are good at is insulting, as they have no knowledge to withstand a discussion. Eventually the one with knowledge gives up, and it appears that the ignorant one has defeated him.

Then you ask “What about other gods besides yours? You know, ones that didn't say every soul (prove there is a soul) will taste death?”

There is no true deity besides God. Ofcourse, God has attributes, and all deities that are called upon besides God neither have the power to harm or benefit you. What I am saying is, despite the fact that there are many gods out there; there is only one true God, and it is easy to distinguish between them if one is sincerely seeking the truth. Nonetheless, if there are gods (I don’t know of any) that claim the opposite to ‘every soul will taste death’ then surely they are WRONG, as we all do die. And the followers of such a god are wasting their time.

As for the soul not much is known to us about it. The soul is something created by God, just like everything else. The knowledge regarding its true essence is something that belongs exclusively to God. As God also tells us that the soul is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with Him, and of knowledge mankind have been given only a little. But one of the things we do know about the soul is that it is blown into the foetus, in the womb of the mother when it is 120 days old by the will of God. This is when the foetus becomes a living creature. Ofcourse to Atheist, this is all rubbish, but the reason why I mention it is because if you want to disprove God, all you have to do is create human life. Not only would that disprove the need of a soul, it would also disprove God of being the Creator of Life.

By me saying ‘disprove God by creating Life or preventing Death,’ is not crap and does not suck. It is simple and clear to understand, but it is something that is impossible for you to do. Ofcourse, if you can do it, Atheism would have stronger grounds and religions generally would be demolished. I notice you keep focusing on the ‘death’ part, but there are two options there, so if you feel you cannot prevent death from occurring, then you can always create life.


“Seriously? So natural life doesn't die, eh?”

Of course it does, because God wills it to. What don’t you understand? I am not suggesting we wouldn’t die. I know we would die. But for the millionth time all I am saying is God says He gives life, and causes us to die. So as you are an Atheist, and you disbelieve in God, bring some hard evidence to the table to disprove God by either creating Life or preventing Death. Atheist should be able to disprove everything God says, since they don’t believe He exists. I am not going to explain this to you again, if you don’t understand it from here, then you are really slow.

Anonymous said...

I said:
"And if you are correct when death approaches me I have nothing to lose..."

Admin replied:
“Ah, Pascal's Wager. Nice. There are several ways you can lose.

1. You've already lost your sanity.

2. You've chosen the wrong god, which pisses the real god off more than people who chose no god at all, like us. You're going to pay for that.

3. A god gave you a brain, for thinking. You have refused to use it, choosing to believe in the fairy tale of Christianity/Judaism/Islam. That angers the gods, as you are rejecting the gift of intelligence. You'll pay for that.”

Several ways I can lose if I still believe in God, but hypothetically speaking you are correct and God does not exist?
1) How would I lose my sanity by believing in God? Majority of people on earth today believe in a Creator and they are all sane. So the likelihood of that happening due to believing in a God is very unlikely.

Number 2) and 3) makes me laugh, since they are basically irrelevant. Understand what I initially wrote Admin, you never pay attention. I said “If you are correct,” so if I believe in God and hypothetically speaking you are correct, and God does not exist, then how would I have chosen the wrong God to piss the real God off???

Neither would exist to be angry at me. And if you truly believe that I am going to pay in the chance of picking the wrong God, despite the fact that I said “If you are correct,” then basically you have just refuted yourself, and acknowledged the existence of God whether you believe in Him or not. I hope you understand that.

Now, since in point number (2) you are basically acknowledging a God to exist to punish those who chose the wrong god, despite the fact that I said “If you are correct,” then let me ask you:

What makes you think that those who chose the wrong god would be punished by the real God, and those who chose no God at all wouldn’t be???

Point number (3) totally confuses me. Bear in mind I said that if you are correct and God does not exist. Then how could a God have given me a brain for thinking? How could God be angry with me for choosing to believe in a religion?

Also, If God gave me a brain for thinking, then how would He want me to use it instead of choosing a religion to follow His teachings? Tell me.

Admin... what is this Pascal’s Wager nonsense you’re throwing at me? The only point that was relevant was number (1) and even that never had strong bases. The rest of the points, if you truly believe they are to happen to people who believe in God, whilst at the same time being an Atheist, you are then contradicting yourself and you are in denial. As you cannot have it both ways, you cannot say you believe that God does not exist, but then threaten believers with punishments from a God. One of us is right, not both, ONE.

As initially stated, if God does not exist I have nothing to lose. You on the other hand will have everything to lose. And you can only argue point 2 and 3 if you believe in the existence of God, until then, they are irrelevant coming from an Atheist.

Anonymous said...

I said:
"They can't answer rationally and disprove God, and proof to me or the rest of the world that Atheism is the truth."

Admin replied:
“No such proof is required or even possible. Check 'burden of proof' again.”

We both have burdens not just me. However you may think I have more to proof than you. I don’t think so. You see majority of people around the world believe in a Higher power, they may not know who the Creator is, thus the reason for many gods; nonetheless they acknowledge there is a Higher power. Atheist, reject the whole concept of their being a Creator, something that I think is absurd, illogical and irrational. So I think the burden of proof lies on you, Atheism is the minority, making a claim, that all religions and God is nonsense. So you have the burden to prove that claim otherwise what you say is worthless.

It is like saying buildings erect themselves, and we say no it had a maker, and you say no they erect themselves. Now I don’t feel the burden of proof is on me, that I have to proof a claim that is preposterous, irrational, and illogical. But it should be you, who has the burden to proof to us that buildings erect themselves. Just like with God. We say God created the heavens and the universe and all that exists, because it is clear mankind never made it, and everything has a maker. And you say God does not exist, which is illogical, so the burden lies upon you to prove it.

Obviously, if you say you want proof that God exists by seeing him then of course that is something we cannot do. But if you were to ponder and contemplate upon the creation, you’d know that this could not have come into existence except by a Creator. The entire universe points to a Creator, how can you deny it? How did the universe come into existence without a Maker? Tell me.
And if God wanted the whole of mankind to believe in Him, that would have been easy for Him.

Just to reiterate, if I am right, which of course I am, since only a fool would be an Atheist, then what would be your situation when death reaches you? Because then you would know the truth. And if you are right, which of course you never would be, I have nothing to lose.


Admin:
“OK Dude, your grammar sucks. Sorry, but it's true. We never said luck and randomness, that's another strawman argument. It's a logical fallacy. Ah, so we believe that something came from nothing, but you don't? So your god came from where?”

Okay. That is what another Atheist told me that it was all by chance us and everything else coming into existence. Not another Strawman argument, just repeating what I’ve been told. You tell me then, how did we come into existence from the beginning?

As for the God argument, that is a cycle with Atheist as they cannot comprehend the concept of God. Firstly, let’s look at the creation. It is not possible for something to come from nothing. The statement in and of itself does not make sense. And no, I don’t believe that things can come from nothing. I believe in a Creator. Tell me an item, which has come into existence from nothing, without being made? And you expect me to believe this universe did?

That was talking about the creation. As for God He is not part of, or like His creation. We have a beginning and an end. God does not have a beginning or an end. Some attributes of God is that He is The First, and He is The Last. So to ask me “your god came from where?” is a nonsensical question, as God is not like His Creation, which needs a beginning. And to say God has a beginning or was created, then He would not be a God. I hope you understand those attributes, and how your question is not fit to be associated with God.
Lol, sorry about the grammar...

Anonymous said...

I said:
"And either way when I die if I am wrong (for certainty I aint) then I still have nothing to lose."

Admin replied:
“Oh, you've got a lot to potentially lose. You've just never thought about it very much.”

Okay. I think I covered this and explained above as to how I have nothing to potentially lose. But I think, you should read your own response and think about it yourself, and what you have to lose.


Admin says:
“The fact that damn near all of Genesis and the first books of the Bible have been proven wrong doesn't faze you at all? There will always be SOMETHING in the bible that has never been proven wrong, and you'll continue to hide behind those, while the rest collapses around you before the power of scientific inquiry and overwhelming evidence. You've set yourself up to NEVER stop believing, NO MATTER WHAT. This is another reason why we mock you.”

No, it does not faze me at all. The Bible is full of clear contradictions, it is known, that a lot of the teachings in the bible have been inserted and is fabrications. Whether accepted or believed that is another matter. I don’t believe a holy book should contain contradictions, as God does not make mistakes. And I haven’t set myself up to NEVER stop believing, NO MATTER WHAT, but of course I am going to believe there is a God, and until you can disprove that with the so called power of scientific inquiry (bear in mind it is God that gives us the ability to get to where we are today in science) I’d always believe. And your mocking to be honest does not affect me, I actually pity you, as I sincerely believe if you die upon what you are on, you are going to Hell.

Certain things such as God, paradise, hell, devils, the hereafter etc science would not be able to prove. In religion some things you must have faith in, as our knowledge is limited at the end of the day. Some think Atheist are not able to do. Besides, science is always changing, with new developments, new findings and new research. The universe was once considered static by scientists, and they had their models and calculations to support that claim. Now we know that the universe is actually not static but is expanding. I wonder how many people passed away believing we had a static universe, not that it is a big deal, but it is a big deal if you are going to take science as something that has the answers to everything and is always correct.

“So go ahead, hide behind your quote about everybody dying eventually. I can tell you right now that it will NEVER be proven wrong, because it's completely unfalsifiable (it would take an infinitely long amount of time to prove, and therefore is impossible), so you're perfectly safe to hide in fear there with your belief in your imaginary friend.”

I am not hiding behind anything. All I am saying is my religion teaches me that there is a Creator. You say there is none, illogical since everything that is made must have a maker. But this rule does not apply to God as God was not made. So I tell you that God says He created Life and Death, and every soul shall taste death. And since you believe God does not exist I ask you disprove what God says, now if it is impossible for you to do, then it is impossible for me to believe there is no Creator. There are so many other claims I could ask you to disprove what God says, but I chose that. Now if you can’t prevent death then create life, if you can’t do either, then your claim is worthless. I am not hiding in fear with my belief, nor is God imaginary, as I know what ever claim I ask you to disprove about God you would never be able to do.

Anonymous said...

“To clarify, please tell me why the accounts in all holy books of the origins of the Universe, Earth and life have already been proven wrong, but your god has not been disproved by that, yet if we could prove that this quote is wrong, that it WOULD disprove gods? I call bullshit on you! You'll just hide behind a new quote, like I said above.”

As you have stated ‘all’ holy books, you must have certainly done your research as to what each and every holy book says about the beginning of creation. So tell me, what do holy books say? And how have they been proven wrong? Let’s just focus on the main religions here.

Also let me clarify something, I believe my religion is from God. Now if my religion tells me something, and science appears to contradict it, then there are two situations here:
1) A misunderstanding from me as to what is being said in my religion, so it is my misinterpretation.

2) Science is wrong

It is as simple as that. I go back to the example of the static universe, which was clearly wrong. But I am sure people of that era believed it was true. Also Atheist do not know how the universe originated, they only know how the universe developed from the starting point of just being dense smoke. They don’t know how did it come into existence, what caused it, or even what lies outside of the universe. So for you to claim ‘all’ accounts on the ‘origins of the universe’ have been proven wrong, you don’t even know the origins of the universe yourself to prove anybody wrong, unless you mean the development of the universe, then I’d like to know what do the main religions say about the development of the universe for them to be wrong?

As for the origins of life on earth, if your theory is evolution, again that is just speculation, and has no merit in reality. Tell me how evolutionists explain the cell forming itself, by chance, under primitive uncontrolled terrestrial conditions, yet today in the 21st century a cell cannot be made in the most sophisticated, high tech laboratories???

Until you can tell me what do holy books say about the development of the universe, and proof to me how evolution is 100% what happened, I would not agree with you that God has been disproven by anything.

And yes, if you can disprove that it is God that created Life and Death, by creating life yourselves, create a flea, a minuscule insect or something, or by preventing death, then you would have disproved God. And how can I hide behind any other quote when God has been disproven? That would make me become like you illogical.

Anonymous said...

“And FYI, if we DID begin to live forever, it would NOT disprove the existence of gods. You have a very weak grasp of how things are proven. I suggest you don't embarrass yourself further.”

True, it may not disprove the existence of gods, but it would disprove the existence of a God. There is a difference. There is only one true God, and many false deities. And it is only God that gives life and causes death not gods. If I was to carve myself an Idol and worship it and pray to it, and call it god, it does not make it God.

So you are right, if you did begin to live forever, it would not disprove the existence of gods, as they would always exist, and people would always worship and believe in deities besides the true God that deserves to be worshipped. However, you would disprove the existence of God, which is what we are talking about here, as the other many gods that exist cannot create life, nor cause death, can neither benefit you, nor harm you.

I am not embarrassing myself at all. I find it ironic how you called me a fucking moron; you tried to make me look stupid etc. but after going through your response I certainly would not consider you a genius at all. I know that is the tactics of Atheist, they can’t debate, so they insult, and appear to win that way. I responded to most of your response, some I never bothered, as it was childish insults, however if you respond back I am not going to reply and waste my time if all my questions are not answered, and if your response is just foolishness. I have no time to be honest, to be debating with an ignorant Admin, who has already made up his mind, despite not being able to disprove anything.

Also please try to read, and understand what I say! A lot of the explaining I would not have needed to do if you had understood my initial statement e.g. Pascal’s Wager nonsense...

Anonymous said...

“Wait.... so if we believe there's no higher power, then we should be able to prevent death? What the fuck is wrong with you? You really don't understand why we're mocking you?”

Yes, if you sincerely believe that God does not exist, especially since most religions generally believe it is God who gives life and causes Death, then you should be able to disprove it. Let me put it this way, Atheist should be able to debunk major claims religions make, as to believe God does not exist is not a minor issue, so when asked questions Atheist should be able to provide full substantial answers to them, not simply ‘I don’t know’ or respond back in taunts and ridicules as that does not strengthen your claims. Especially questions on the origins of creation. Also Atheist should have researched religions before becoming an Atheist. Tell me why isn’t Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc. not religions that could be from God? How can you assure us with certainty that God does not exist? Prove to me that religions are false, that God is false, and that belief in paradise and hell is false. Of course if you can proof a religion is false then all its claims would fall with it like dominoes. Proofing religions and God to be false should be easy of an Atheist since they disbelief in them. Responses such as ‘Religion is man-made’ or ‘God is a fairy tale’ does not cut it I’m afraid. Proof it!

The only reason why I said Atheist believe our purpose of existence was just to reproduce, is because most Atheist reply back by saying ‘to reproduce,’ so I am not trying to set-up a Strawman argument here. I am just repeating what I’ve been told, and it seems to me that to Atheist our purpose of existence are just to reproduce and keep that gene pool going. Like we are going to last forever anyway... And if what I’ve been told is wrong then tell me, what is our purpose of existence?

I said:
"because when your appointed time reaches you neither can you delay it nor beyond it, do you think we would not be held accountable for our deeds?"

Admin replied:
“You might have "deeds" that need somebody to be held accountable for, but I don't. And I resent you accusing me of having done such deeds. This is why we don't like you.”

What do you mean ‘somebody’? The only person that would be held accountable for my deeds is me. Everybody is accountable for their own actions, and each of us will be held accountable for what we used to do (whether you believe it or not). I am not accusing you of anything, however we all do deeds whether good or bad, and that is a fact. And another fact is we would be held accountable for what we used to do, and none of it would go unnoticed.

Feki said...

Which reminds me, I need to cast my vote for the 2010 Troll Awards...

Admin said...

Feki, will it be the anonymous poster or PG?

Admin said...

"Like I said before, and again Atheism is the most irrational belief there is."

Right. You say, therefore it is. No proof or reasoning required.

"As the ignorant one ends up name calling, has no knowledge and jumps topic."

You don't notice that I addressed your points AND called you a fucking idiot?

"Contemplate and tell me what the probability of the universe is with all its characteristics coming into existence out of chance?"

Do YOU know? You really didn't get my point. We're back to the swimming pool. I just chose a number from 1 to 100 trillion. What are the odds that I chose that exact number? One in 100 trillion. Was it magic?

"Clearly, looking at the universe and the way it is organised there is intellect behind its existence not mere luck."

The Americans already had this trial in Dover. Your side lost. They were unable to prove a designer in a court of law, in front" of a Christian judge. You lose, dude.

Admin said...

"Is it luck again, that it is situated at a distance from the sun where it is neither too cold, nor too hot for living creatures to exist?"

You're too stupid to understand the swimming pool, aren't you?

"If not humans then what other life may have arose? You tell me."

You're aware there is life on Earth that isn't human? And that some of it is adapted to environments other than our own? And then you don't know what other life could have arisen? Evolution did not have to make humans.

"1)What are the main gases in the atmosphere required to survive?
2)What are the measurements/volume/concentration levels of these gases within the atmosphere?

3)Now tell me, why are these atmospheric gases at exact measurements? Why not more, or less? What would happen if it were more or less?"

Oh, a science question! What, do you think you're some kind of science whiz? Thank you so much for being patient with me! I really don't know what I'd do without your patience. Here are your answers:

1. Oxygen is required for humans to survive
2. Roughly 20%
2. If it were more or less, within a fairly wide tolerance, we'd still be able to survive. Why is it at that percentage? Swimming pool.

"You tell me Admin, what initiated the creation of the universe? What caused the singularity to come into existence? How did it come into existence?"

Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? It's a logical fallacy, and you're using it. "God of the gaps", to the less intelligent people. The 14th-century theologian asks, "What causes lighting? Do you know? Ha! Then gods!"

"you can’t reject and ridicule my answer without providing a better one."

Yes, I sure can. OK, you don't understand burden of proof, and you don't understand argument from ignorance.

"Admin fine, I say God the Creator says it is He who created Life and Death. If it makes you feel better prove me wrong as to what I claim."

Burden of proof. You do know that it's virtually impossible to prove a negative? Any negative. So you're arguing by challenging me to prove something that is impossible to prove. What kind of argument do you think that is? Feki's right, you're a troll. And a fucking idiot.

Admin said...

"Let me put it this way, until you can give me a rational answer as to all my questions, every single one of them, including what initiated the creation of the universe?"

Burden of proof, argument from ignorance.

"As frankly, I don’t believe that we exist just to have sex and reproduce, and that is our sole purpose."

Why do we have to have a purpose? Does it scare you in your little girly underwear that we might not have one?

"All these questions, I ask you, my religion gives me the answers, and my religion is not man-made it is from God."

Prove it. No, I'm going to use your tactic..... prove that Hinduism is wrong.

Admin said...

Alrighty anonymous troll, as you've spammed my blog pretty seriously, it seems your objective is to run me in circles. Here is my very simple challenge to you:

Prove that Hinduism is wrong. Actual proof, not hand-waving or quoting your scripture.



And you really don't get the argument from ignorance thing? You don't understand how somebody doesn't have to have an answer to every question to mock yours? Here is a simple example:

I come home one day and find my lamp knocked over. I don't know how it happened. All of the doors and windows are closed, there is no sign of entry, I don't have a pet. How did the lamp get knocked over. I call my friend, who is you, the anonymous poster. You tell me that space aliens landed on my front lawn, teleported into the house, and had a party which knocked over my lamp. You challenge me to find a better explanation, and if I can't, then I can't mock yours.

It should be immediately clear what the problem is.

By the way, it's amazing for somebody who had so little time for me, and who needed so much patience just to deal with me, that you produced the most rambling this site has ever seen at one time. Good work! That's why Feki called you a troll.

Anonymous said...

You answered nothing. I knew you wouldn't, from the nature of your first response, but I thought I'd see if your capable of a knowledgable discussion. Obviously not. I am not going to waste my time proving Hinduism is not true to you. Your not serious, but a waste. Worthless response, talking about water in a swimming pool, just like that Pascal's Wager nonesense that you were so excited to tell. Anyways, you never answered my questions so I'm not going any further, maybe another Atheist can do it, because YOU and Feki are jokers. But who cares? I want to believe in God, you don't. We both die (mutual agreement I hope) I am wrong, nothing happens, you are wrong, what is your excuse? Swimming pools & a trail is Dover against a christian judge? Fool, Hell will be your eternal destination if you die upon Atheism. Only time would tell.

And No you never addressed any of my points, so don't claim you did. You obviously don't have any answers so you can't address them. Any truthful person that reads this blog would see my questions 98% of them are left hanging with no answers. Admin, I am not going to make the mistake of labelling all Atheist as idiots, but Admin you're not very smart, neither is Feki. You basically just confirm to me more and more that God exists, and I'd be loony to join you and your pathetic ideology

Admin said...

"I am not going to waste my time proving Hinduism is not true to you."

And that says it all, doesn't it? Some points to leave with:

1. As soon as you are forced to use an argument from ignorance, you have failed. You used several, so you failed.

2. You do not understand the swimming pool.

3. You don't know how things are proven. You cannot prove a negative, which is why you "won't waste your time disproving Hinduism."

You suck and you don't know the difference between "you're" and "your".

Feki said...

Mr. Troll here is making PG and Eillix look almost "enlightened".

Atheism is not an ideology, it is a plain and simple statement supported by (a) evidence, (b) logic and (c) science.

Anonymous, your belief system is based on a book of fables written by people from the Bronze Age. It is in fact not supported by any evidence, it absolutely dismisses logic and has been proven wrong by science. Really, it contains no more "divine inspiration" or valuable knowledge than Egiptians hyeroglyphs, the Vedas or any other ancient religious text. That to me is irrational.

The fact that scientists do not have a definite explanation for everything does not make god real. Science has succesfully disproved delusions from thunder-fearing hominids like you for a long time, and it will continue to do so whether you like it or not.

Don't you think it is time to grow up and accept gods are imaginary?

Even kids nowadays know that Santa is not real. Are you even aware he is not real?

Admin said...

Feki, he has followed the classic religious flowchart when I asked him to disprove Hinduism:

Atheist made point -> say you won't waste your time (again) -> say you're leaving (again) -> threaten eternal hellfire -> that'll show the atheist!


Anonymous poster, can you or can't you disprove Hinduism? It's OK to say you can't, because I know you can't and that's exactly my point. Refusing to do it, yet also refusing to say you can't, doesn't leave you in a strong position. But if you can't disprove Hinduism, then you must be able to understand why your constant challenges for me to prove you wrong are ridiculous.

OK, you won't prove Hinduism wrong, prove that half-swan/half-elephants do not exist.

Anonymous said...

1) I can disprove Hinduism but not to you, you're a joker, not serious at all.

2) You never answered my questions because you can't.

3) I have nothing to lose if I am wrong, so who cares what I believe in! Your going to HELL if your WRONG!

4) You can prove a negative, to say no negatives can be proven is not true at all. Rubbish. I can disprove hinduism and many other negatives.

5) Lol, you cannot prove God does not exist, because it is a negative you claim, but the reality is, it is because maybe somewhere God does exist, beyond the universe perhaps, and you cannot disprove it. There are other ways to prove God does not exist, through proving other negatives, numerous others, but you believe no negatives can be proven, so you're pretty useless!

6) Not only can't you prove negatives, you can neither prove positives (Thus you are very useless). You can't prove that the evolution theory is 100% true, or prove that we came into existence from chance, or prove that God is a fairy tale, or prove that all religions are man-made.

7) You're an idiot in reality! You take the theories and concepts of man-made philosophers and scientists as your God. As if either is ever always 100% right.

8) Everything that exists has a purpose, but to you WE DON'T. What are the chances?

9) Your doomed if you're wrong. I bet you deeply wish you can live forever.

Feki said...

Just how non-believing in god makes me want to live forever?

I'll die, you'll die, everybody'll die.

Is that comprehensible to you?

I say after dying there's nothing. My mental process will stop and my body will decompose. End of story.

You say after dying there's a chance to go and live up in the clouds and play the harp forever, or if naughty, to be cast into a lake of fire for eternal damnation.

So it is clearly you who speak of eternal life. I am aware that biological processes of all known living creatures eventually come to an end. That means death. Science has so far increase our average life expectancy far beyond than what it was back in the times when nomadic tribes invented your religion. You live longer because we know now that disease is caused by microorganisms, not demons, and that antibiotics and not exorcism are an effective way of treatment.

Atheism does not pursue nor claims inmortalilty. Au contraire, it asserts the evident: there is only one life, and you are wasting it with delusional thoughts and superstition.

Admin said...

1) I can disprove Hinduism but not to you, you're a joker, not serious at all.

Right..... like I didn't see that coming. Troll.

2) You never answered my questions because you can't.

I didn't answer the 12 posts worth of questions because the first 3 posts that I read were so full of logical fallacies that it was easier to destroy the foundation and call you on your argument from ignorance. Arguments built on bad premises are not usually valid.

3) I have nothing to lose if I am wrong, so who cares what I believe in! Your going to HELL if your WRONG!

You found me, not the other way around. Nice repeating the hellfire threat. Good for you. And again, learn what "your" and "you're" mean.

4) You can prove a negative, to say no negatives can be proven is not true at all. Rubbish. I can disprove hinduism and many other negatives.

Really? Go ahead. Or the swan-elephant thing. Troll.

Admin said...

"5) Lol, you cannot prove God does not exist, because it is a negative you claim, but the reality is, it is because maybe somewhere God does exist, beyond the universe perhaps, and you cannot disprove it. There are other ways to prove God does not exist, through proving other negatives, numerous others, but you believe no negatives can be proven, so you're pretty useless!

So the god exists, which is why I can't disprove it, but you can't prove it either? Burden of proof. Look it up. Also disprove Hinduism. Troll.

6) Not only can't you prove negatives, you can neither prove positives (Thus you are very useless). You can't prove that the evolution theory is 100% true, or prove that we came into existence from chance, or prove that God is a fairy tale, or prove that all religions are man-made.

And I also can't prove that a pen will drop to the ground every time I release it. Can you?

7) You're an idiot in reality! You take the theories and concepts of man-made philosophers and scientists as your God. As if either is ever always 100% right.

Uh-huh...... can you offer me any proof that this god that guides you exists? Or that the hell you threaten me with exists? I believe in the ideas of people that I can show to exist. You can't.

8) Everything that exists has a purpose, but to you WE DON'T. What are the chances?

No, everything does not have a cosmically-given purpose, and I never said otherwise.

9) Your doomed if you're wrong. I bet you deeply wish you can live forever.

It would be nice, perhaps. There are drawbacks, for sure. But you haven't demonstrated that you have anything but wishful thinking and delusion to offer me.

Admin said...

There, did I address enough of your points? NOW can I call you a fucking delusional idiot troll?

Look dude, the reason you're not getting any respect here is because your argument sucks. Here's what you need to do; develop an argument that does not have its foundations in logical fallacies. Then we can proceed.

Alternatively, please call the Atheist Experience show (http://www.atheist-experience.com/) next Sunday and present your argument. It's their 666th show, which everybody is really looking forward to, because of the satanic number. If you tell them you have proof for the existence of gods, they'll bump you to the front of the queue, ahead of all other callers. Of course, I'm sure your response to this idea will be that you don't have time to waste on such things.

Admin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Admin said...

Hey Feki, I can prove there are no gods, I just don't wanna!

Admin said...

"6) Not only can't you prove negatives, you can neither prove positives (Thus you are very useless). You can't prove that the evolution theory is 100% true, or prove that we came into existence from chance, or prove that God is a fairy tale, or prove that all religions are man-made."

Do you realise what you did here? All you did was re-word the negative as a positive. It doesn't change the fact that it's a negative. How would you prove that all gods are fairy tales? By proving that gods don't exist. How would you prove that religions are man-made? By proving that gods didn't ever communicate with people. You've disguised the negative as a positive. That's a little intellectually dishonest, don't you think?

And you're right. I, meaning I, cannot prove evolution true, but there are a load of biological scientists who can. Read a book, dude.

Anonymous said...

Feki, I am not reading your posts, it is bad enough dealing with one misfit let alone two.

1) I would be a fool to claim my religion is the ONLY true religion, without being able to disprove Hinduism. I've debated with Hindus before, but having this discussion with an Atheist would be fruitless.

2) You never answered my posts worth of questions because you are unable to. Simple.

3) Point number 3 still counts whether you found me or I found you. I have nothing to lose, and you're going to Hell if you're wrong. Live with it.

4) Negatives can be proven. Hinduism can be disproven. It is just you who is unable to. Ape.

5) Ape your useless. You say negatives can't be proven, but neither can you prove positives. Just face it, you can't prove nothing. And if a negative is turned into a positive it is no longer a negative.

6)It is mutual; I don't respect you either. Until you can prove all religions to be man-made then you are just babbling to me.

7) Listen Ape! YOU should be able to prove evolution is 100% true, since you believe it. To be honest it is just 100% speculation, but you can't even prove me wrong. Ape.

I Noticed you never answered any of my evolution questions in the posts either.

8) This is certainly going to be my last response Ape. Initially I started off with the intention of a good discussion, but as you are a joker, it is now becoming tick for tack and anything but a good discussion.

So I am going to leave it as this. You to your belief and me to My belief.

Feki said...

Not sure if you'll read this, but I will say it one more time: atheism is not a belief.

Unlike religious people, atheists have absolutely no beliefs. Can you picture not having any religious beliefs?

Not believing that god, santa or superman are real is not a belief, it is an assertion based on facts.

Religion is no different to superstition. You can hold on to a rabbit's foot for good luck or believe that eating wafers on Sunday will grant you favours from the "other side, in the end there's no objective measurable result.

I don't need to "believe" that god does not exist. It is evident that he/she/it is an idea, a product of the imagination of people who cannot cope with their human condition: as the only self-conscious animal especies on Earth, we are alone and we are accountable to each other for everything that we do.

But whatever dude, you to your beliefs, and me to my rationality and mental health.

Good luck with the harp up in cloudyland, or the local assylum, whichever you get to first.

Magnamune said...

Wow. Just wow. Anonymous, are you serious? I mean I've noticed a ton of hand-waving and dodging, but no actual counter. And calling Admin an ape is stupid, cause it opens the doors to you bbeing called dirt.

I have what I consider to be a firm grasp of evolution. I can give examples of speciation (the process where organisms change over time to be separate species), on both micro- and macroscopic levels. I can explain how natural selection works to cause long term changes in populations.

I can use evolution to explain the way animals who live in similar habitats look similar, and why species are spread out on the planet the way they are.

I can use science to explain the world around me in an observable way, without the need for a super-natural being. Occams Razor.

Admin doesn't need to be able to explain Evolution. No-one is omniscient (sorry if I misspelled). The gaps in any one persons knowledge are filled by the knowledge of another. If there are still gaps, there are people looking to fill them. With PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND REASONED LOGIC.

Admin, I'm sorry for jumping in... It will probably cause more harm then good, but I couldn't help myself.

Admin said...

Hey Magnamune, no problem. I stopped reading this guy's posts, and haven't read the most recent one. I have some points:

1. The anonymous poster most certainly is dirt.

2. If he called me an ape, that's cool. By definition of the word ape, we are all apes. Except for the anonymous poster, see #1

3. I can explain evolution, and I have a decent understanding of some of the best evidence for it. But asking me to prove it is silly. Do I seem like I have a fricking laboratory full of fossils and genetic research tools? I can read about the work of scientists who have provided proof, who publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, and other scientists who find that work helpful in explaining their own results. But as an individual, I can only point to the scientific literature if I'm asked to provide proof.

Jim said...

Here's the thing. Evolution is not 100% fact. It is a working theory, based on evidence and research. While it is 100% fact that evolution occurs (it has even been witnessed in laboratory experiments), no one knows all the details. Which is why it is not called the 'Law of Evolution'.

But I propose a challenge to this anonymous poster. It should be quite simple. I'm not even going to ask you to prove your gods existence. If you are able to successfully complete my challenge, I, in turn, will willingly and unquestionably, convert myself to the side of theism. I will admit there is a god. And I will gladly admit that atheism is wrong.

All I ask is that you prove that you exist. Nothing more, nothing less.

Have fun.

Admin said...

Jim, the description you gave of laws and theories are not accurate. Check here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

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

We call gravity a theory, but it has a formula contained within it, called the Law of Universal Gravitation, expressed as G*m1*m2/r^2

Jim said...

I understand the difference, I was trying to dumb it down for the theists out there. I was trying to illustrate that even though evolution is a fact, it is still a working theory without all the kinks worked out. Unlike, say, the Laws of Motion, which are set in stone, and every observation ever, has only served to confirm them.

I apologize for the confusion, and I admit I should have chosen my words more precisely when I wrote them. I hope this clears it up.

farcry said...

Anonymous is loony, don't listen to him.

I am an Atheist & I believe the whole world created itself. Just listen to this I have a paper clip & just like the universe this paper clip created itself.

Anonymous you are the illogical one if you don't believe me.

Daniel said...

Being on vacation I missed ALL of that:(
I wanted to throttle the anon after the first couple because,
just DAMN!!
And I'd rate him as more trollish than PG because he double-posted his huge piles of shit and clogged up the page.

Anonymous said...

Please define "burden of proof"

Anonymous said...

I am not the same guy that was writing earlier but abmin it is very obvious you do not know the definition. Prove to me simply that athiesm is in any part verifiable in history or can be proved without ANY doubt that it is even logical thinking.

Admin said...

I made a post for the last 2 commenters.

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2012/02/what-is-burden-of-proof.html

Anonymous said...

What is your definition? You did not answer my two questions. Remember "burden of proof"

Admin said...

I didn't answer your question? Are you a moron? Click the link to the special post I made for you!

Jim said...

"What is your definition?"

Only someone who believes in imaginary things can phrase a question with an absolute answer in this way. An atheist would ask:

"What is THE definition?"

A theist makes sure there is some room to maneuver. Some room for interpretation. A personal response.

Atheists go with in scientific proof and absolutes. They want to know YOUR answer because then they think they can poke holes in it. Whereas we know you can't poke holes in an absolute answer.

Anonymous said...

HA HA you all make me laugh. You can't even give me a definition in your OWN words. I'm sorry I thought I was in an adult blog not 2nd grade! According to all my studies you believe in evolution, would you break evolution down and describe exactly what you believe for everybody reading this? From your arguments you have not a clue exactly what you believe in. Maybe I need to go to a more educated blog to get this answer.

Admin said...

I'm not sure why you're still posting this here. Did you not take the hint when I made a separate post for this topic that the discussion should move to there?

Did you even read the post I wrote for you? Yes or no? Those are my own words describing the burden of proof.

Here's what I think your plan was before you made your initial request:

Step 1 - Taunt Admin by asking him to define "burden of proof"

Step 2 - Admin will stumble and be unable to provide such an explanation

Step 3 - Laugh at Admin and continue to demand that he defines it

When I was actually able to define it in my own words, you decided to "stay the course" and continue with your plan. You are still on script and have completely ignored the fact that I did exactly what you asked.

Either that, or you're just a stupid fucking troll.

Admin said...

And I'd like to request that NOBODY, not me and not any of the readers, give in to the troll's second demand of defining evolution, until we get this first matter resolved. It appears that he will not read the response, and will just continue to taunt, like a troll does. When he has grown up and can read/acknowledge the post I wrote for him, we can move on to further discussion to expose his ignorance.

Reid said...

I personally believe that a reasonable man could accept either scenario. Either god exists.. or he does not. HOWEVER.. A reasonable man will look at modern religion and turn away from it due to its many holes.

Arguing whether god exists or not is ridiculous and there is no way to prove either side.

In reality the truth is that we can not know, and will not know until after we are buried beneath the ground.

Admin said...

"Arguing whether god exists or not is ridiculous and there is no way to prove either side."

No, it's not ridiculous. Not when one side is insisting that you must live be the rules set down by their god and is trying to get it legislated. Not when one side is executing people for talking badly about their imaginary friend. And if the god proposed by most humans is real, then it SHOULD be able to be proven! This thing answers prayers, performs miraculous feats, etc. And because it apparently WANTS me to believe in it, it should be showing itself!

"In reality the truth is that we can not know, and will not know until after we are buried beneath the ground."

No, we won't. We won't know anything when we're dead. Sorry.

Jim said...

"Arguing whether god exists or not is ridiculous and there is no way to prove either side."

The point is, we don't have to prove gods don't exist. Because no one has proven that they do. How do believers still not grasp this concept?

David said...

Oh, my. I've been reading your blog for a while and just decided yesterday to start from the beginning and work my way through. I'm glad I did, because that guy really made my day.

Admin said...

You're doing WHAT? Oh, you poor thing.

Anonymous said...

I HAVE A FRIEND HE IS AN ATHEIST HE TOLD ME THAT GOD DOSENT EXIST HE TOLD ME THAT OF ALL THE EVIDNCE THERE IS HOW COME WE HAVENT SEEN GOD TOUCHED SMELLED OF HEARED GOD AND I SIMPLEY SAID HOW COME WE HAVENT FELT TOUCHED SMELLED TASTED AIR BUT WE STILL BELEVE THAT IT IS THIER GOD IS A SPIRT HE IS THERE HE IS THE ALMIGHTY GOD WITHOUT GOD THERE WOULD BE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ARE LIFE WOULD BE MEANING LESS
MY NAME IS :ANDREW AND IM 16

Anonymous said...

There is so many ways of proveing he is real

Admin said...

First I'm going to say that I don't think your comment is legit. There are a lot of people who for some reason enjoy pretending to be stupid theists. The all capital letters and silly argument is a good clue. But anyway, the air argument is pathetic:

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2010/11/ive-never-seen-air-but-i-know-it-exists.html

Anonymous said...

Show me where the explanation of the origins of the universe given in the Quran is proven wrong please.

Jim said...

First show us the proof that supports it. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

1. What was in the beginning? All the matter in the universe, but superbly compressed.
2. How will life on earth end? When either: earth becomes uninhabitable/is destroyed, or: the last living beings die without reproducing.
3. What happens after death? Your corpse no longer functions and your conscious ceases.
4. What is the purpose of existence? There may be none.
5. Why is there order in all of creation? There is actually very little, and the order already there will degenerate into entropy and chaos.
6. Why there is morality in every civilization? Because people imposed laws upon each other to stop them from killing each other.
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator? Because in ancient times, people could not explain the world with science, so they made up stories about Yahweh and Allah and Vishnu, etcetera…
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society? Because their conscience has evolved from the primitive instinct of single-celled organisms.
9. How did nothing create everything? That is not true: everything was originally there, but in a hot, dense state. Also, how did your God come up with the materials to create the world?
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg? The bacteria came first, then the jellyfish, then the fish, then…all the way until we reach primitive dinosaur-birds, which evolved into chickens, which laid eggs, which made chickens…
I made this, and I'm twelve!

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine told me he was once standing near a river that he wanted to cross to the other side but couldn't. But not long after a tree not too far from him broke off and fell into the river in pieces that formed a well secure stable canoe and paddle. With which he was able to climb aboard and paddle across to the other side.

I was just wondering what do you guys take of that?

Admin said...

Seriously?

Can I answer in one word? "Bullshit."

If a longer answer is needed, I knew a girl who joined a cult in California and would tell about the powers of the leader. I had a co-worker who claimed aliens visited her regularly at night, that demons attacked her while she was sleeping, and that Jesus fought the demons and saved her.

Is an explanation to your friend's story really necessary? I set the bar for evidence a little higher than that.

Anonymous said...

Well Admin, thank you.

I give you an example of a canoe forming into existence from something that already existed i.e. the tree. And yet you confidently claim it 'bullshit.'

But then you expect me to believe that the universe and the earth and all that exists within it, came into existence from nothing???

Your intellect told you that the above minuscule scenario is 'bullshit,' but where does your intellect and sincerity go when it comes to the formation of the universe, earth and all that is within it?

There is more chance of a canoe being formed from a falling tree than there is of the universe, earth and all that exists within it being formed from nothing but luck!

And you claim "I set the bar for evidence a little higher than that." Such pretentious lies!

Because what you really believe is nonsensical, based on speculation, feeble theories, no real logic or evidence involved, and is based on a foundation that is weaker than the house of a spider.

So please just remember how you sincerely answered the above scenario by calling it 'bullshit,' that it applies 100% more so to your actual explanations and opinions of creation. Despite the above scenario being more possible and logical than your actual belief.

P.S And like I said to you in 2010. If I am wrong (which of course I am not) I have nothing to lose. But if you are wrong (and I would be worried dying on speculation) you have everything to lose.

Admin said...

Oh, so you WERE serious? Wow!

"I give you an example of a canoe forming into existence from something that already existed i.e. the tree. And yet you confidently claim it 'bullshit.'"

Do you have any evidence? Or am I supposed to just believe a friend story on the internet from an anonymous poster? The bar is not very high for you, I see.

"But then you expect me to believe that the universe and the earth and all that exists within it, came into existence from nothing???"

Doesn't seem that I wrote that, but anyway.... why do you believe a god can exist from nothing? Evidence points to Big Bang. we don't know what preceded that, if it's even a reasonable question. Do you understand what evidence is and how it's important?

"Your intellect told you that the above minuscule scenario is 'bullshit,' but where does your intellect and sincerity go when it comes to the formation of the universe, earth and all that is within it?"

Quantum physics and the Universe is not a canoe forming when I need it. There's a big difference, and evidence points to Big Bang. You have a dislike for evidence, don't you?

"There is more chance of a canoe being formed from a falling tree than there is of the universe, earth and all that exists within it being formed from nothing but luck!"

Source please. Your blind assertion is not acceptable. I'm gonna be honest here. You really, really suck at this. Your arguments are ignorant, simplistic and not persuasive.

"And you claim "I set the bar for evidence a little higher than that." Such pretentious lies!"

Uh-huh. So the evidence for the Big Bang is not a high bar, but it would be if I believed an anonymous poster online with a friend story? What is your understanding of cosmology and physics? Please cite your credentials and recent reading of the scientific literature on the topic. Which evidence do you reject?

"Because what you really believe is nonsensical, based on speculation, feeble theories, no real logic or evidence involved, and is based on a foundation that is weaker than the house of a spider."

Because? Please cite your problem with the evidence.

"So please just remember how you sincerely answered the above scenario by calling it 'bullshit,' that it applies 100% more so to your actual explanations and opinions of creation. Despite the above scenario being more possible and logical than your actual belief."

Says you. Not the evidence.

"P.S And like I said to you in 2010. If I am wrong (which of course I am not) I have nothing to lose. But if you are wrong (and I would be worried dying on speculation) you have everything to lose."

You have a whole lot to lose. You're just not bright enough to see it. Care for me to expand? I mean, this is Pascal's Wager, it's pathetic.

Admin said...

Let's focus on 3 things here:

1. You have a problem with the concept of evidence and how/why it is useful. You reject the evidence of the Big Bang (and probably do not even understand it or why you reject it), but expect me to believe some unusual story you tell me in an anonymous post.

2. You argue that a Universe cannot just exist but that an intelligent spirit capable of creating the Universe can just exist. That's special pleading and is just silly.

3. You cannot see the problem with Pascal's Wager, believing that you have nothing to lose, when actually, you have a massive amount to lose. And you expect me to find it convincing.

Anonymous said...

Admin you totally failed to understand the analogy.

To explain it to you; it was a nonsensical hypothetical scenario that you called ‘bullshit,’ however the point is that ‘a canoe being formed luckily into existence from something that already existed (the tree)’ is more plausible than ‘everything coming into existence from nothing but luck’ which is what you actually believe! I cannot put it any clearer.

And yes, you do believe everything came into existence from nothing but luck.

Who said I disagree with the ‘big-bang’? The difference is you believe it occurred and proceeded from nothing but luck. And I disagree. You believe protons, neutrons, electrons, gasses, starts, planets, galaxies, the law of gravity, the solar system, the moon, the ozone layer, earth’s magnetic field, solar radiation, the earth’s composition, earth’s gasses, prokaryotes, the process of photosynthesis, eukaryotes, the process of cellular metabolism, cellular replication, formation of plants, and so on (the list is extensive I would never be able to do it justice) everything came into existence from nothing but luck. And I disagree. Where is your evidence?

There is literally more chance of a canoe forming from a falling tree, despite how farfetched it sounds than what you really believe and call to! No, but rather it is your arguments that are ‘ignorant, simplistic and persuasive.’

And what is this illusionary ‘bar for evidence’ that you claim to have? It’s nothing, except trying to appear intelligent. I do not reject the big-bang, cosmology, or physics. Since when was it required of a theist to do so?

And I re-iterate: What you really believe is nonsensical, based on speculation, feeble theories, no real logic or evidence involved, and is based on a foundation that is weaker than the house of a spider.

You keep saying ‘Pascal’s Wager’ which is pathetic as I have already broke that down in 2010, as to how I have nothing to lose if I am wrong (hypothetically speaking). It just shows you repeat the same phony arguments over again, a lack of sincerity. I must say, however, this Pascal’s philosophy is rubbish to me, unlike you I do not hold man-made theories, speculation and philosophy to any esteem.
If you want me to break down these 3 points again (from you), let me know:
“Ah, Pascal's Wager. Nice. There are several ways you can lose.

1. You've already lost your sanity.

2. You've chosen the wrong god, which pisses the real god off more than people who chose no god at all, like us. You're going to pay for that.

3. A god gave you a brain, for thinking. You have refused to use it, choosing to believe in the fairy tale of Christianity/Judaism/Islam. That angers the gods, as you are rejecting the gift of intelligence. You'll pay for that.”

Admin said...

No, I did pick up that the canoe story wasn't real. It didn't matter though, the point is the same.

This conversation is going in too many directions. Choose ONE point that you want me to address, and I'll respond. Then we can move to another.

Anonymous said...

1) I do not reject the big-bang nor did I claim to. That is a strawman on your behalf.

2) I argue anything in part of creation that has a design must have a designer, anything that has organization must have an organizer, anything that has laws must have a law-giver, and anything that is created must have a creator. I do not look at the complexity of a plane, car, computer etc. and argue that they can just exist without a cause. It is simply not rational. The universe, however, is far more complex in design than any of those things and you literally believe that it can just exist? Wow.
Also I never claimed the Creator to be a spirit.

3) I would happily re-answer Pascal’s stupid Wager if you really want me to again. I don’t understand how you never understood it the first time. I have nothing to lose literally, and you have everything to lose literally.

“Why do you believe a god can exist from nothing?”

God has attributes. We may not understand His attributes with our intellect, but we should just accept them. And that is exactly what I do. First thing you should know God is not limited to the laws of His creation. Second God is not part of His creation, He is unique and there is nothing comparable to Him.

I do not believe a god can exist from nothing, because there are many gods out there that exist from something. I believe The Creator can exist from nothing, because one of His attributes is that He is The First i.e. He has no beginning and always existed. And that can only be the case in regard to God who is not part of His creation, which has a beginning.

Also in regard to the ‘concept of God’ it would be nonsensical to ask ‘who created God?’ 1) Because it goes against God’s attributes which is used to define God. 2) He would not be God to begin with if He was created, as what created Him would be the true God.

I know you may not care about this. But even my religion defines the concept of God clearly, which is rational and cannot be any other way, otherwise it would not make sense.

Admin said...

Choose ONE point that you want me to respond to.

It's easy to accuse me of strawmen when you have been so coy up until now about what you do believe. I've laid my beliefs out there, and you have hidden yours so you can surprise me with an "ah-ha, got you!" moment. Not impressed.

Jim said...

"But even my religion defines the concept of God clearly, which is rational and cannot be any other way, otherwise it would not make sense."

I'm glad we found the one true religion here. A religion which defines god (Notice how the religion defines the god, and is not based on a god they know), and that their god is rational (Which I hope it would be, seeing as how your religion defined your god), and that it makes sense.

My word, you could apply this argument to anything and it would work. If you believed int the FSM this argument would work. If you believed in Xenu, this argument would work.

I wish I had the opportunity to define god and make it rational. Never mind the fact that any god is irrational by nature, seeing as how there is more chaos than perfection in the universe.

But I digress.

Allow me to pose a question about your "rational" god:

Why does your god not stop a grown man from raping a little girl? Is it because he does not exist, or does not have the power, or simply does not want to? Even if you cite "freewill," why would your god create a person who would rape a little girl? Surely your "rational" god would see that creating a rapist serves no purpose in the grand scheme of things?

But of course, I will likely get an answer along the lines of "freewill... blah blah blah... my god doesn't interfere with everyday life... blah blah blah... my god didn't make the person evil..." Even though your religion "defined" your god, it still fails to make any concrete claims about your god.

Which you have yet to prove exists.

Admi, if I may, I suggest we stop answering this anonymous person's questions until he proves beyond a doubt, according to the Scientific Method, that his god is real. Otherwise he'll simply keep arguing from ignorance, using unprovable claims, resorting eventually to philosophy, quotes, and the argument that we "can't prove god doesn't exist."

So ridiculous. They feel they don't need to prove their beliefs, but ask for proof of ours. How childish and ignorant.

Anonymous said...

To be honest it was not my intention to do any of that. Fortunately it is very simple to know what an atheist believes. To summarize without intending to sound rude it is just science to an extent, speculation to fill in all the huge gaps and luck as the cause of it all.

Whereas you on the other hand just generalize all theists, and assume we all do not accept science. I never claimed it, you assumed it.

Admin said...

So anonymous, is that the one point you want me to respond to first? Seems a little more basic than I thought. Fine, I'm sorry I assumed you were a typical Christian theist. When you give me so little information to go on, and when nobody in the religious world can agree on anything at all, it becomes very confusing for us atheists to sort you out.

By the way, can you at least use a screen name when you post so that I may differentiate you from the other charming theists who visit here?

Also, loved the way you lumped all atheists together in your summary. It's false, by the way.

Now, do you have another point for me to respond to? Before you give it, please consider the following. Does your particular version of the gods (no more assumptions) respond to prayer? If so, please pray hard before you make your next point. I'd think a god with any kind of power could inspire better arguments, or send somebody better, to convince me of its existence. So pray that the next argument you use will be persuasive to me. Then give me the next point you'd like a response to.

Jim, if we made him prove it, the conversation would just be over. We may get to that point soon, but for now, let's be sporting.

Miles said...

To be honest Jim, you have not yet answered any one of my questions to begin with. It's a mission to actually get an answer from an atheist. And instead of actually answering anything the topic always reverts back to me having to prove God exists, without even receiving 1 answer to any question posed.

I am not going to respond to your post now Jim. It is too much and I'm tired. But let me say this to you, you clearly did not understand the brief points I said about God. Try to comprehend because I cannot keep going round in circles. I told you 'God is not part of His creation' hence I would never be able to physically prove to you that God exists. And if you are relying on that as proof then you are to die without ever getting it.

And like I said before, If I am wrong and everything was created through LUCK, I lose nothing. Whereas if you are wrong and there is a Creator then you are the biggest loser indeed.

As for you Admin, that was a trivial response, as I was making a statement not posing a question. Learn the difference.

Admin said...

"As for you Admin, that was a trivial response, as I was making a statement not posing a question. Learn the difference."

Argh. I asked twice for a point to respond to and I get a statement. So I responded. Are you sure it isn't you who needs to learn the difference? So am I clear that you have no single points you want me to respond to? Come on, you play the game of dumping a pile of shit at my front door so well, but I refuse to sort through it all at once. Then I ask you to separate it and I'll respond, and you refuse? Or are you using this time for that prayer I suggested?

By the way, I know you've "explained" to Jim and myself many times, but you have not "supported", so we have no reason to believe you. You do have a problem with evidence. Whether or not you realise it, you don't like it and don't feel you need it.

Now, if you will, your next point for me to respond to..... Or do you have nothing?

Jim said...

Why didn't I get to your point? Well, you have to prove a god exists in order to defend it first. There is no point in arguing about something that has yet to be proven to exist in any way shape or form. Period.

Jim said...

"Fortunately it is very simple to know what an atheist believes. To summarize without intending to sound rude it is just science to an extent, speculation to fill in all the huge gaps and luck as the cause of it all."

No, it's science, period. I would love for you to explain the universe with god without creating a single gap. And yes, that means proving god exists first. Second, you must prove that this god wasn't created. Third, you must prove that this god created anything at all. You think I believe in gaps and luck? No.

"Whereas you on the other hand just generalize all theists, and assume we all do not accept science. I never claimed it, you assumed it."

Like the Admin pointed out, you generalized all of us, so why can't we generalize you?

Miles said...

Jim you can’t argue with me about God as you do not have any concept of God. In order to avoid us going round circles, first acknowledge the principles on the concept of God and debate with me based upon them. Otherwise you are just using straw-men (atheists do that a lot) to try and discredit me, but in fact you haven’t refuted me at all.

First there can only be one true God. Using the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Xenu against me are perfect examples of straw-mans. It does not weaken my position at all. It is just pathetic of you, if you cannot debate with them.

As for the rest of your garble talking about God being ‘irrational’ by nature because the universe has more chaos than perfection and girls being raped are further feeble straw-mans.

And then you ask me to prove God is real according to the Scientific Method. By default that request is not feasible. The scientific method can only be used on things that exist within the universe and earth, things that can be observed etc. God on the other hand is NOT part of His creation. Now I am not telling you to believe this, but in order to debate with me without wasting my time with straw-mans like you do with other theists, understand MY BELIEFS which is X and tackle me on X not Y.

If I said to you my God is an idol or a man for instance, then fair play, your argument would be justified.

And no, I am not going to claim that you “can’t prove that god doesn’t exist.” As the scientific method or any other worldly method for that matter is limited and cannot be used to reveal God, and by default it is nonsensical to suggest using such methods against God. Hence, I cannot provide you the tangible proof that you want to prove that God exists and you cannot provide me with any scientific proof that proves God doesn’t exist. It is beyond the ability of science.

However the difference between us is rational thinking. I see a sophisticated, intelligent organised design and I say there MUST be a Maker even if I cannot tangibly feel, touch, see or hear him. I know based on my intellect and reasoning that someone must be responsible for having created it. However you on the other hand would look at the same thing and come to the conclusion that because I can’t prove it was made by someone (despite its complexity), I am just going to believe it appeared by chance by itself, through a process of lucky events that also luckily occurred by themselves.

Now I never claimed ‘science’ can be used to reveal God to you, however atheists pride themselves and claim to be 100% scientific without believing in luck (as you claim), hence there should not be anything in your belief that you cannot 100% prove. Right?

So my first two questions Admin are:

1) Explain to me how can something that has intelligent design, structure and organisation to it be created without having a maker but by it-self.

2) How exactly does Pascal’s Wager prove that I have massive amounts to lose (as you claim) if I am wrong in believing that God exists?

I actually look forward to those two questions being answered. I wonder would your response ‘wow’ me or make me roll my eyes back.

Admin said...

I asked for ONE (1) point that you'd like a response to. This is the 3rd time I've had to ask. ONE! Do they count differently where you're from?

Miles said...

Admin common sense would tell me to respond to the first question first!

The second question is just so you know what it is.

Stop procrastinating.

Admin said...

I'm growing really tired of you and you're already wearing out any interest I had in you, or goodwill I might have had towards you. My site, my rules. Don't like them? Then piss off! ONE!

Admin said...

Miles, you should know that I deleted your last post. You seem to have a real problem with this single-point thing. That's what I asked for, and you have been unable to provide it?

You accuse me of doing it so that I don't have to answer the questions? Seriously? Then what do you think I'm going to do if you actually do find enough strength inside you to post one question? you think this is part of some master plan to avoid answering it? Honestly, you suck. The conversation is stalled because you cannot follow a simple request by the owner of the site that you're visiting. It's YOU! When you stop being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole, or not giving in, or whatever reason you have for not being able to provide one point after being asked 4 times, we can continue. But I am rapidly losing interest in you.

Miles said...

To be frank admin, you are pathetic, and like one comment said on top that he thought this was an adult forum. Guess not. Now you are even deleting my comments.

Anyhow for the sake of not wanting to waste any time the first question was exactly as I posted above, and the second question if I can even be bothered to ask it, because this is juvenile is also going to be the same question as posted above.

The FIRST QUESTION Admin:

1) Explain to me how can something that has intelligent design, structure and organisation to it be created without having a maker but by it-self.

Now let's see which juvenile excuse you conjure now.

Admin said...

Your question is loaded. It already assumes you are correct. You can't even ask the question in an intellectually-honest manner.

My response is that I do not accept that the Universe is intelligently designed, and do not see intelligent design in it. You, and all others like you, have utterly failed to ever demonstrate that it was intelligently designed, despite thousands of years of trying.

Admin said...

Intellectually honest person's version of the question:

"How do you think the Universe came into existence?"

Theist's (intellectually dishonest) version of the question (paraphrased):

"Explain to me how something that is intelligently designed could be created by itself".

Admin said...

I'll accept your apology anytime for ASSUMING that I was going to dodge your question. I even helped you out and taught you how to ask it in an intellectually-honest manner, so that you can try again. For a person who doesn't like assumptions or generalisations, you sure do make A LOT of them about others.

Miles said...

You know what Admin. Forget this. If you literally call that answering my question, then I am 100% convinced without any shadow of a doubt that you especially as an atheist have no real answers.

Like I gave the analogy of the 'spiders house' in regards to your arguments. It is just so flimsy that I would be a fool to die as an atheist.

For the sake of clarity before I leave this site. I never said the 'universe' I said 'something.'

Since you don't believe the 'universe' to have an 'intelligent design' why did you pick it? Did you not comprehend my question? Or is it because you can not think of something that has an intelligent design?

Also, whether you believe the universe to be intelligently designed or idiotically designed is beside the point. I can't believe I have to do this: The point was how such be created by itself without a maker.

This is a bloody joke. And then you twist it to me having to prove 'intelligent design' of the universe, without me even mentioning the universe in my question, and without you even answering my question.

If that is the best you can do, let's just call it a wrap. I don't think I want to ask any more questions, since you can't even answer my first. Let's just agree to disagree. One thing we can agree on is death, so lets just agree on that. And If I am wrong, so be it, but if you are wrong the joke was always on you, and you have nothing but your own-self to blame.

Your response was a WTF moment!:
"My response is that I do not accept that the Universe is intelligently designed, and do not see intelligent design in it. You, and all others like you, have utterly failed to ever demonstrate that it was intelligently designed, despite thousands of years of trying." - Admin

Admin said...

Sorry if I mis-interpreted your question, but I'm pretty sure what you're getting at. Your over-reaction is unwarranted. So here's the answer to this question:

"1) Explain to me how can something that has intelligent design, structure and organisation to it be created without having a maker but by it-self."

The answer is, by definition, (I believe) things that are intelligently designed do not come into existence by themselves. Isn't that a trivial response to a trivial question that answers itself? Now don't treat me like an idiot and try to deny that you were heading for the Universe with this. I saved you the time, you dishonest jackass.

Admin said...

I cannot believe that after all of that, you try to convince me that your question was essentially tautological. Is that REALLY the information/answer you needed from me?

You win over-reaction of the year award.

Admin said...

After reading your comment more deeply, I found this:

"Also, whether you believe the universe to be intelligently designed or idiotically designed is beside the point. I can't believe I have to do this: The point was how such be created by itself without a maker."

This is your admission that you were heading to the Universe with your question, and that I was correct in interpreting your intention as such. But even now, you've loaded it. Your only two options are "intelligently designed" or "idiotically designed". You have never even considered "not designed" as an option. You can not approach this topic in an intellectually-honest manner. That's why it's useless to continue.

Enjoy the shackles you have placed on your mind. Perhaps someday you will know intellectual honesty and freedom. It's great!

Admin said...

Jim, are you still reading? Did you buy that Miles didn't really mean the Universe when he wrote "something"? I sure didn't. That word is also used by many apologists as an abstraction meaning "all that exists", as the opposite of "nothing" or "non-existence". Then he pretty much confessed later in his comment.

If he cannot even pose his questions in an intellectually-honest manner then lies to me about his true intention, I don't have interest in a discussion. I don't think it's too much to expect him to not ask questions that assume he's correct as a built-in characteristic. The problem is, he has shackled his thinking process and has shown no evidence that he is even capable of forming such a question. The dichotomy he gave during his hissy fit also only offered options that assume he's correct. Pascal's Wager already requires an implicit assumption that one is correct, but he flat-out wrote it and made it explicit that he does assume he's correct when he poses the wager.

Jim said...

He is worthless. He refuses to answer any question posed to him in an intelligent manner. He has yet to prove that his gods exist or that there is "intelligent design" in anything. He asks completely loaded questions, as you have pointed out, that assume he is right to begin with.

He has no concept of "Burden of Proof," and must therefore be rejected from any debate.

We (you and I) accept the Big Bang Theory as the creation of the universe because it is the best explanation with the most amount of proof. We have even provided evidence and referenced evidence, and have even cited sources. When a theist comes here clamoring on about how we have no proof of the Big Bang Theory, we provide tons of proof.

But with Miles, like so many other theists who come here, when asked to provide proof of their stance, as they have asked for ours, they never answer. They never provide proof. They never answer the simplist question posed to them about the existence of their gods. They either tell us to prove gods don't exist or ask us loaded questions about "intelligent design" (which has no proof either). They resort to this "complex systems coming from nothing" bullshit, and assume that things don't just pop into existence (except their god, which is the ultimate irony). They ignore the fact that universe has been around for almost 14 billion years, and is still quite chaotic and strange. They think evolution popped out man from monkeys, thus ignoring all the evidence of evolution stating that man did not pop out of monkeys.

They refuse to learn anything, and refuse to use their brain to question anything. It is absurd, and frankly, quite insulting.

Miles made the claim that there is indeed a god. Miles has yet to prov that there is a god.

Miles claims that the universe is "intelligently designed." Miles has yet to prove that this is the case.

Miles makes claims without any supporting evidence, other than his other claims. He claims god exists because the universe has a "design." Then he claims that the universe has a "design" because god created it. This is a circular argument, and an argument without support. He believes that since one argument supports the other, and vise-versa, that he has somehow proved his point. It would be like me claiming that Pepsi is the best soda because it is sweet, and that Pepsi is sweet because it is the best soda. Neither point proves or supports the other in any meaningful way other than reinforcing my own opinion. No facts were stated, no proof was given, and no concrete and testable result was offered.

Miles is a troll, plain and simple. Until he can offer facts to prove his god exists, he has nothing to argue with.

Miles said...

TO JIM:

Honestly, you are annoying. You are like the person in the room making noise and causing a distraction.

You are literally like the king of straw-mans. It is just so ridiculous.

Straw-mans you have just used against me:
1) I was not asked to prove ‘intelligent design’ in anything.
2) I believe in God not gods
3) I have already explained based on my belief of God why it is not possible to provide the proof you want for His existence. If you can’t understand that, it is your problem.
4) I never said I do not accept the Big-Bang theory
5) I never claimed you do not have any proof of the Big-Bang theory
6) I have answered all the questions posed at me. Contrary to what you stated.
7) I never asked you to prove God doesn’t exist. (Already explained this)
8) I never said I believed God just ‘popped into existence.’ I believe He always existed. There is a difference.
9) I never said I thought that evolution ‘popped out man from monkeys.’ I know what the evolution theory speculates.
10) I never claimed as of yet that anything is intelligently designed. Where did I claim such?
11) I never claimed God exists because the universe has a design. Where did I claim such?


And you call me a troll? I have never seen so many straw-mans in my life in one comment. You are an expert at misrepresenting people, I can see that. I guess it helps your cause.

Jim if you want to support Admin, could you do it in an honest manner. It is ironic how Admin is calling me ‘dishonest’ for assuming too much, but yet you Jim are clearly being dishonest and yet the Admin doesn’t even mention it. It just shows that atheist are not sincere people, and as long as you one, you would be accepted, no matter how stupid you talk, think or debate. Maybe I am wrong, but this is what it seems like.

Also Jim, I am not going to respond to any of your rhetoric until you can produce a comment without a single straw-man. Because this is a serious issue you have.

Miles said...

Ok, so you answered the question.

To summarize you believe things that has intelligent design, structure and organisation to it do not come into existence by themselves, and hence it has a maker.

Second Question:
2) Could you give me an example of something that you consider to be intelligently designed?

As for the rest of your irrelevant typing to justify you not answering my question properly initially, to be honest I am not interested in. My question was clear and general. It was you who wanted to assume this and that, and answer my question based on your assumption. Just like you assumed I do not believe in science because I am a theist.

I do not care whether the response was trivial. It is beside the point. And I am not being dishonest in anything. If my question was specific to the universe, I would have just said the ‘universe,’ why would I beat around the bush for? My question was open for a reason.

I think for the sake of time, it would be best if you just answer the question, instead of answering what you think I am heading to. It is just so simple. Why complicate it?

I apologise if I over-reacted. I just felt like you we’re taking a mickey after insisting I ask one question, and then you don’t even bother answer it properly.

No, you were incorrect in interpreting my question. You fail to understand that whether I believe the universe to have design, structure, and organisation and to have been made or not is beside the point. The point was based on YOU and YOUR thinking, NOT mine. Goodness sake...

“Enjoy the shackles you have placed on your mind. Perhaps someday you will know intellectual honesty and freedom. It's great!”

What shackles? Because that I believe in a Creator who is not part of His creation, and who is Omnipotent. To the contrary of believing everything has just come into existence from nothing at all. Yes, I think I would enjoy my ‘shackles,’ as I think it is being intellectually honest than to put it all down to luck.

And lastly admin, Pascal’s Wager and his philosophy is neither here or there. It means absolutely nothing to me. I do not care what Pascal’s Wager requires. You keep trying to categorize me with this philosopher, but know that I do not associate myself with the teachings of his philosophy.

And you still CAN NOT explain to me how I have nothing to lose, if I am wrong. But you on the other hand have everything to lose.

Admin said...

I knew you'd be back.

One question at a time, Miles. Again, you're trying to take the conversation into multiple directions at the same time. Do you want me to answer the question about an intelligently designed object? Or about shackles on your mind? Or Pascal's Wager? Focus, please. You're using this opportunity to just spew, to dump the 2 armfuls of bullshit on my porch without challenge, because I have made it clear that I will only be responding to one point at a time. It's the Gish Gallop, and is a well-known technique of the religious in debate, which is the context the term originated from. This is extremely difficult for you, for some reason. FOCUS!

And I'm really sorry if you don't understand the baggage that the term "something" has taken on due to apologists like yourself, but as a result, your question was ABSOLUTELY NOT clear! If you wanted to avoid the baggage that now comes with "something", you could have used "an item", etc. As explained before, "something" is often used by apologists to mean, "all that (physically) exists".

If you could just get your questions out one at a time and not over-react to misunderstandings due to ambiguity, this conversation could have been much further along by now.

Admin said...

And one more thing. If your next post contains complaints about the format of the discussion I've set-up for us here, then we're done and you can fuck off. My website, my rules, I don't give a damn if you like them or not.

Admin said...

As you are incapable of getting out a simple question without surrounding it with other topics of bullshit and complaints, you may now fuck off.

We probably could have done 5-10 questions a day if you were only capable of following a simple request from the host of the debate. As a consequence of your own incompetence, we only got 1 done over several days, and it was absolutely trivial. It's really too bad, because I had already written my responses to your questions in my head.

Jim said...

Can I just say that Miles can seriously go fuck himself?

Thanks.

Admin said...

He's sent in 2 comments complaining about the rules of the discussion. I didn't publish them, and yes, he can go fuck himself.

Jim said...

My favorite points:

1) I was not asked to prove ‘intelligent design’ in anything.

Uh, you made the claim, you have to prove it is first a valid claim.

2) I believe in God not gods

Like there is a difference.

3) I have already explained based on my belief of God why it is not possible to provide the proof you want for His existence. If you can’t understand that, it is your problem.

So he believes in something he can't prove exists? Sounds like he is insane.

4) I never said I do not accept the Big-Bang theory

Then you must not believe in god.

6) I have answered all the questions posed at me. Contrary to what you stated.

Then where is your proof of god?

7) I never asked you to prove God doesn’t exist. (Already explained this)

Didn't say you did. I said theists said this.

8) I never said I believed God just ‘popped into existence.’ I believe He always existed. There is a difference.

I said theists say this.

9) I never said I thought that evolution ‘popped out man from monkeys.’ I know what the evolution theory speculates.

I said theists say this. And evolution doesn't "speculate." Evolution has been proven to happen. It's a fact.

10) I never claimed as of yet that anything is intelligently designed. Where did I claim such?

Your own words: "Explain to me how can something that has intelligent design, structure and organisation (sic) to it be created without having a maker but by it-self."

11) I never claimed God exists because the universe has a design. Where did I claim such?

(see above)

Jim said...

Also, what rules? I didn't know there were rules? Is he seriously that insane that he not only believes in something that has no proof that he also believes in rules that do not exist? I think Miles may need some help. Serious help. He thinks supernatural beings exist and imaginary rules.

De Ha said...

1. What was in the beginning?
Previous universe collapsing
2. How will life on earth end?
Sun explodes
3. What happens after death?
Rotting
4. What is the purpose of existence?
Who cares?
5. Why is there order in all of creation?
Gravity
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
Highly subjective to the point of absurdity
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
They also thought the Earth was flat
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
:) so you admit you DON'T need religion for morality. Good! Finally, a non-sociopathic creationist.
9. How did nothing create everything?
...aaaand my respect for you is gone.
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Egg

Anonymous said...

Hello...
No, I have not posted any comments on this blog before, and before you start with your statements concerning whether or not I am speaking through ignorance,
my credentials are as follows:

I personally have 3 College Degrees (1. Administrative Management with a minor in Biological Science, 2. Computer Information Systems, and 3. Legal Investigations)
I hold 7 Computer Based Certifiations
I hold a Certification in Human Resources
I also hold a Certification in Project Management
I ran for the political office of State Representative
I am co-author of 7 Books on Market in bookstores worldwide
I hold a Certification in Publishing
I am a BMI Affiliated Professional Songwriter
I have 8 Songs Recorded and released by other artists
I am a Professional Photographer, published in multiple magazines
I taught as a full professor at 2 different Colleges for a total of 6 years
I held a DOE Top Security Clearance for Nuclear Powerplant Control Room Access
I did environmental background testing for a dozen fossile fuel powerplants
I was a Computer Systems Engineer designing new computer systems at Data General Corporation.
I have worked computer design and programming of applications at IBM, Motorola, General Motors, TRW, Ameritech, Cummins Engine, and Republic Bank.
I did drug interaction studies for the FDA at Humana Hospitals, Eli Lilly, and the Proctor & Gamble drug research facilities.

My reason for displaying my credentials is to provide you with enough information so that you might understand that I am speaking from an "educated" point of view.
(And YES, I can provide proof of my credentials should it ever become necessary).

more....

Anonymous said...

I spent most of 3 hours reading the irrational ramblings that was made here on this blog and find it amusing that the admin resorted to the name calling of his "guest" on this blog. Is this the type of mannors you were taught when growing up, or where you taught to treat guests with some level of respect? Based upon what I have read, I could make several comments as to the lack of intelligence displayed here on this blog as you put very little substance into your comments, while still having it displayed for millions of individuals worldwide to view and laugh at.

I take great offense that you are basically calling myself (and others with an education) "ignorant" for our religious beliefs, and for focusing our moral lives upon the teachings of the Bible. Yes, it is true that science has disproved some areas within the Bible, however, most of the Bible has never been scientifically researched, and thus may or may not be validated, only time will tell. Until then, it is totally unwise and illogical to discount the parts that have never been tested.

Do you realize that in EVERY mental institution, patient treatment is based upon the moral guidance outlined within the Bible? If you was unaware about the mental institutions, do you realize that rehabilitation in the prison system is based upon the moral guidelines directly taken from the Bible?
(Obviously not, Why do you think the Bible is made available to all patients and prisoners? The individuals running the prisons, hospitals, and mental institutions are definitely NOT "ignorant" in using the Bible in their attempts to rehabilitate the patients and prisoners. (If fact, they have been using this method to teach morality for several hundred years in our institutions). The Bible provides a moral guideline that is a 2000++ year old standard as to how individuals should model their lives. Did it come from God or from man? Does it matter? If a person lives by the moral guidelines as outlined in the Bible then that person will have a good life.

As a person with a science background, I am going to ask you a few simple questions that you should consider thinking about. Do I want an answer.... after what I have read here already, absolutely NOT.... I would just advise that you not embarass yourself by making a larger specticle of yourself in public than what you have already done.

more.....

Anonymous said...

Since apparently you do not believe in the Bible, and (even with my above list of qualifications), you come across as someone that might seem to think that I am just an "ignorant that regurgitates these primitive supersititions".... maybe you can enlighten the entire world and attempt explain the answers to these simple questions?

1. Do you feel free to commit murders, homosexuality, go to strip bars, steal, commit adultery, and do other sins since you believe there is no God?
Why should be it wrong to rape if God is not real?
2. You indicate that you believe that Jesus never existed, but have you heard of the Shroud of Turin? To date, noone has been able to explain it, therefore,
"since you KNOW", maybe you can explain how the image was created and placed upon the shroud?
3. How can you explain the 10 foot section of mud in the earth's crust that corresponds to the date of Noah's flood?
4. Why do we not see half trees and half carrots, fronkeys, and crocoducks if evolution is the only factor in determining how life progresses?
5. If evolution is the determining factor of life, how can it explain gravity, angular momentum, and human emotions?
6. Why did Darwin admit that how the eye formed is impossible?
7. If creationists can’t do science, then why are there proven science articles from creationists that do science? Did you know that famous scientists like Newton,
Sir Richard Owen, Einstein, Galileo, and Copernicus were all creationists?
8. Without absolute morals, what ultimate difference is there between Saddam Hussein and Billy Graham?
9. If morality is only a relative social construct, on what basis should anyone ever move to interfere with cultures that practice apartheid, female circumcision,
cannibalism, beheadings, or ethnic cleansing?
more...

Anonymous said...

10. If all of life is meaningless, and ultimately absurd, why bother to march straight forward, why stand in the queue as though life as a whole makes sense? If everyone completely passes out of existence when they die, what ultimate meaning has life? Even if a man’s life is important because of his influence on others or by his effect on the course of history, of what ultimate significance is that if there is no immortality and all other lives, events, and even history itself is ultimately meaningless? In a universe without God or immortality, how is mankind ultimately different from a swarm of mosquitoes or a barnyard of pigs? What viable basis exists for justice or law if man is nothing but a sophisticated, programmed machine? Why does research, discovery, diplomacy, art, music, sacrifice, compassion, feelings of love, or affectionate and caring relationships mean anything if it all ultimately comes to naught anyway? Without a personal Creator-God, how are you anything other than the coincidental, purposeless miscarriage of nature, spinning round and round on a lonely planet in the blackness of space for just a little while before you and all memory of your futile, pointless, meaningless life finally blinks out forever in the endless darkness?

Admin said...

Right.... Wow. OK, you've listed your academic credentials. Then you say you can prove it if it becomes necessary? I think you're taking this much too seriously. That's what we do here, we demand that people post their diplomas. Right? If it was relevant, maybe. However, completely irrelevant. You have a computer science certification and that's supposed to be a "qualification" in the context of a discussion about religion? This is an attempt at the argument from authority, one of several fallacies that you make.

1. No, yes, yes, no, no. There is no such thing as sin. Despite what you might have heard or ignorantly believe, atheists do not have to think that it's OK to rape because there is no god. There are other ways to arrive at a moral code, but I'm guessing you don't know of any.

2. No, I didn't and argument from ignorance. Another fallacy, and the shroud has not been verified scientifically, so no need to respond.

3. I don't see a geology degree, so I guess your computer science qualification makes you an appropriate person to talk geology? Why do actual geology professors not believe in this mud section as a sign of the flood? I'll wait for them to decide. And, argument from ignorance. Ah wait, you're a songwriter. OK, I'll listen to your geology arguments.

4. Crocoducks? Are you fucking serious? I started answering before I read every question, and now I think you're pranking me! You're pranking me or you're an uneducated idiot on the topic of evolution! Seriously, not a fucking clue! There is a reason why the atheist community has taken the crocoduck as a symbol of the worst possible arguments from you fools. Such a thing would be a refutation, not a proof, of evolution! How can you not know that? I'll answer the rest anyway, but you cannot be serious!

5. REALLY? How does evolution explain gravity? You fucking moron! Evolution is not about gravity!

6. NO, HE DID NOT! Have you read On the Origin of Species? I have! Are you getting the first half of the quote with the second half cut off by the religious because it negates everything? I made a post about this, so apparently you haven't read enough of the internal ramblings on this blog. Even if he did, it wouldn't be relevant. This is a lie, followed by an argument from authority.

7. Argh............ can you pojnt to Newton's scientifically-valid papers about creationism? Argument from authority.

8. One was Iraqi?

9. You still think there's no way to arrive at a moral code. I'm starting to think you're a moron and a little bit evil. Without the Bible, you'd have no idea how to conduct yourself.

10. If you can't find a reason to live without an imaginary friend, doesn't mean the rest of us can't. I feel sorry for you then.


So you came here with the crocoduck and attempted to match wits? You need more education on relevant topics, my friend. Running for state office (and presumably losing) is neither impressive nor relevant. But I'm still undecided about whether or not you're pranking me.

Jim said...

"1. Do you feel free to commit murders, homosexuality, go to strip bars, steal, commit adultery, and do other sins since you believe there is no God?"

Here's my counter-question:

Do you think it would be okay to murder, steal, commit adultery, and other sins if there was no god?*

If you say "yes," then you are quite a sick individual. You think that without someone telling you what is right and wrong that you are free to kill and rape.

If you say "no," then you get that morality doesn't need a god.

Now I will post my question, since you are obviously qualified to answer it:

Where is your impossible-to-refute proof of god?

*Being a homosexual is not a sin, it is biological. Homosexuality occurs in almost every species on earth, and is not limited to humans. If you think it is a choice, then you have to tell me when you chose to be straight. And, going to strip clubs? That's a sin?

De Ha said...


1. What was in the beginning?
Define "beginning". And while you're at it, convince me there was one.

2. How will life on earth end?
Sun explodes

3. What happens after death?
Rotting, duh.

4. What is the purpose of existence?
Are you sure there is one?

5. Why is there order in all of creation?
Who says "creation" when they mean "everything" these days?

6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
Because humans don't like other humans who are assholes

7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
Why does every civilization believe in a Flat Earth?

8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
We're human, unlike anyone who needs an external source of morality, which is why I don't trust religion.

9. How did nothing create everything?
strawman!

10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Short answer; egg
Long answer; the question no longer makes any sense. The question is SUPPOSED to be a paradox regarding the origin of life. However, if you actually understand modern science, "which game first, the motor car or the iPod 6?" Makes. More sense because the two events at least happened in the same century. Abiogenesis, the first egg and the first bird happened EONS apart.