Every time I see a thread with the title 'Questions for atheists", or similar, I know I am in for an OP loaded with argument from ignorance.

"I can't understand how to explain existence, therefore, god".

Thanks to the OP for not disappointing.

(April 6, 2014 at 2:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 6, 2014 at 2:01 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: As already mentioned by Alex K, the god that people discuss during these discussion also has a lot of other attributes that fleems (or whatever) don't. Just because it shares some characteristics doesn't mean it's the same thing. Apples and oranges share many of the same characteristics and people seem to dislike comparing them (or at least recognize the difference).

That's why I'm objecting. Well that, and it seems you either missed the point of the illustration or were purposefully shifting the subject to something else.

My intention certainly wasn't to shift the focus.

Fleems form the parts of the Christian God that we use to explain things like origins. Let's for the moment forget that God has any other properties: therefore fleems.

Back on topic: no one is saying that this is proof of anything. It's just one theory. Indeed there cannot be proof, and faith deduced cannot be faith unless it can be deduced.

by fleems you mean an eternal uncaused cause who's existence is of necessity and everything is contingent upon it then call me a fleems worshiper

Nice response to the one post that wasn't specifically addressing your argument.

It's almost as if you're purposefully avoiding any counter-arguments.

Quote:Evolution is a confirmed biological fact that you can literally see happening live, if you wish. By saying it isn't proved, all you've done is demonstrated the depths of your disinterest in learning what science actually knows.

No its not that's because you assume that the eye and brain were somehow developed by its self over billions of years and you assume that macro-evolution is real which is just an assertion because of what you see in micro-evolution which is just natural selection which does not prove evolution.

Yes, by all means, don't respond to anything that actually addresses the points you put forth in the OP. Just demonstrate how you completely fail to grasp the evidence put forth for evolution.

Are you going to actually address the fact that you've been using fallacy-ridden reasoning in your arguments, or just keep on pretending like that isn't true?

(April 7, 2014 at 2:23 pm)super spidey man Wrote:

Quote:Evolution is a confirmed biological fact that you can literally see happening live, if you wish. By saying it isn't proved, all you've done is demonstrated the depths of your disinterest in learning what science actually knows.

No its not that's because you assume that the eye and brain were somehow developed by its self over billions of years and you assume that macro-evolution is real which is just an assertion because of what you see in micro-evolution which is just natural selection which does not prove evolution.

Only a dolt would conclude that there is somehow a difference between micro and macro evolution. The distinction is arbitrary and bastardized by those who don't understand evolution.

(April 7, 2014 at 12:09 pm)microxone Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 12:20 pm)super spidey man Wrote: How do you explain the start of the big bang? there has to be and unCaused first cause. The beginning of the big bang in a split second threw in the existence of time,laws,matter,physics, everything are universe lives with today. If the sun was to far away from the earth we would freeze to death, If we were to close the sun we would burn up.If the oxygen level wasn't perfect we would either suffocate or have fires everywhere. DNA is extremely complex everything is designed on a razors edge, life demands for a brilliant designer its the only logical way. And in the explosion of the big bang it wasn't just random chaos everything was guided into place, what did you guys think everything just happen to be perfect?? I don't have near enough faith to be an Atheist.

you are assuming that the universe had to be created to exist. The universe never needed to be created. It is a possibility that the universe have always been there and we're just space dust.

isn't that what they used to think about the earth? And yes the laws of the universe show that everything must be created. Thats why I cant be Atheist because with you I'm just a bunch of chemicals programmed to do something.

(April 7, 2014 at 2:31 pm)super spidey man Wrote: And yes the laws of the universe show that everything must be created.

Whose ass did you pull that from?

(April 7, 2014 at 2:31 pm)super spidey man Wrote: Thats why I cant be Atheist because with you I'm just a bunch of chemicals programmed to do something.

Appeal to consequence.

It seems you're just a walking fallacy.

(April 7, 2014 at 2:31 pm)super spidey man Wrote:

(April 7, 2014 at 12:09 pm)microxone Wrote: you are assuming that the universe had to be created to exist. The universe never needed to be created. It is a possibility that the universe have always been there and we're just space dust.

isn't that what they used to think about the earth? And yes the laws of the universe show that everything must be created. Thats why I cant be Atheist because with you I'm just a bunch of chemicals programmed to do something.

Unwarranted and misunderstood Parsimony that verges being on a strawman doesn't win you any kudos either.

*sigh* is there a place in the world where they churn you guys out and your thoroughly debunked and nonsensical arguments?

It's almost like you guys don't even try to be intelligent anymore. I'm sure you're a smart guy, but for heavens sake, please use you brain before posting for all our sakes.

(April 7, 2014 at 2:23 pm)super spidey man Wrote: No its not that's because you assume that the eye and brain were somehow developed by its self over billions of years and you assume that macro-evolution is real which is just an assertion because of what you see in micro-evolution which is just natural selection which does not prove evolution.

Assume that? No, I don't need to assume; the evolution of the eye, at least, is quite well mapped. As for this micro/macro crap, using that as a response to anything is just bullshit on your part: to say that "micro" evolution won't result in "macro" evolution is the same as saying that if you take one step in a given direction, and then just keep taking steps in a line, you'll never walk a mile.

It's just an assertion you're making, without any basis, any evidence, nor any mechanism for why those smaller changes wouldn't accumulate into big ones. And I don't take the fantasies of know-nothing creationists, whose only attempt at argument is to poke holes in the existing science by inventing nonsensical problems with it and expecting everyone else to act as though they're real, as seriously as I do the evidence-based claims of real scientists.

You want me to take your macro-crap argument seriously? Go and fucking provide some experimental data that shows a mechanism by which smaller changes are prevented from accumulating. Until then, kindly shut your mouth and let the people who actually know what they're talking about do their work.