Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You can't honestly say atheists in general believe in magic at all.
If you believe inanimate matter came to life, that is worse than magic..that is voodoo.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: There are no facts that resemble 'space debris->life suddenly appears'. You skipped some steps.
Ok, what steps?
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You seem intelligent, so I'll do you the courtesy of inferring that you did so on purpose.
I will give you courtesy of asking you to provide me of the mysterious steps that you claim I missed, instead of just flat out assuming that you don't know the steps.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: And even so, not all atheists accept abiogenesis.
Well, the atheists that don't accept that God did it, nor that abiogenesis did it...what are they left with?
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: A hypothesis is potentially falsifiable, by definiton. Whatever God may be, a hypothesis it certainly isn't.
The God hypothesis can be falsified. If you postulate a God that is based on a logically incoherent concept...that makes that God false.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Then it doesn't cost you anything to report the abiogenesis position accurately, does it?
yeah, because I challenge the notion that it happened at ALL.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Pretending my point sailed over your head is deliberate stupidity: the worst kind.
Oh, I definitely understood it..I just didn't grant it.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Your incredulity isn't an argument for the correctness of your position.
Well, that is my standard.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Some atheists believe in ghosts. An atheist can believe in any supernatural being except for gods. I don't think they're being rational either, but they exist. You probably don't agree with the theology of pagans, but they're still theists. And don't get me started on the Raellians, who believe in transcendant aliens.
But whatever they believe in has to have explanatory value. As I think I've demonstrated, a timeless cause is needed. So unless the atheist believe these "ghosts" transcended time before the universe, then there position suffers from a virus called "irrationatitis". These ghosts would also have to be able to create from nothing, thereby being extremely powerful.
And my goodness, when you take away all the fluff and feathers, the being(s) that they call "ghosts" is just another name for....God.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: To see someone come to an atheist board and think that the atheists on it are a representative sample of all atheists is pretty ridiculous.
Well, the vast majority I've come across believes "naturedidit". That is from about almost 15 years in to apologetics.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Or a supernatural cause that isn't a god.
So please define a supernatural cause that creates a universe/time from nothing and not fit the definition of "god". What would you call such a being? We call such a being "god". They may call it something different, but the fact of the matter is...it is the same entity being called a different name.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Or 'I don't know'.
Which would still give rise to the POSSIBILITY of naturalism.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's not a game. It's us acknowledging that not all atheists think the way we do, and you not liking it.
It is a game. Sure, there are people out there that believe all sorts of crazy things...but the vast majority of atheists I've come across in my years, none of them ever expressed to me that they believe in a supernatural reality with at ALL.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: What you learned in grade school isn't the be-all and end-all of the scientific method. In cases where an experiment isn't possible, we see if a model can make predictions that can be tested. We didn't conduct an experiment with the orbit of Mercury to confirm Einstein's theory, we took a closer look to see if what it was doing matched what Einstein said it should be doing. That's the kind of 'experiment' that is done with evolution: we use it to make predictions of what we should find if it is true and look where the model says they should be. That's how we found Tiktaalik and countless other fossils that evolution predicted should exist (and which strata they should exist in) but which we hadn't found yet.
Regardless of what you did to validate a theory, something was done. Nothing has been done yet to validate the origin of consciousness, OR abiogenesis.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yet. Science doesn't know everything. What science doesn't know doesn't add a whit to the odds that you're right.
I think Jesus hasn't made his return to earth, "yet".
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: They are not theories. They are hypotheses. Evolution, on the other hand is a scientific theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. [\hide]
Evolution is a 160 year old LIE.
[hide]
(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: They are falsifiable and could turn out to be wrong. Maybe for the first time ever we'll find an unnatural cause for something in nature.
You do realize that an unatural cause is a supernatural cause, right?
Apparently it's a 160 year old lie that has held up to 160 years of scrutiny, is the basis for most of our life sciences and that no one has been able to disprove, especially creationists!
That's a really strong lie. Anyone would suspect that, considering all the above, that it's actually a fact.
(November 5, 2014 at 3:24 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: This is specified complexity...and the only way you would get that kind of complexity, that kind of specification, that kind of precision is from an intelligent designer...an intelligent orchestrator...to engineer the process.
That was a reasonable position to take before we (largely) understood how evolution works. It's a dumb algorithm that gives the appearance of intelligent design by filtering out all the really bad models and only leaving the the ones that are at least minimally adequate for surviving to reproduce. It's creative in the sense that novelty can arise from it, but calling something that involves trying everything and letting the environment kill all the unfit variations doesn't resemble the kind of intentional design that humans do much.
We're now using similar algorithms to devise new proteins for medical use, because at computer speeds it can be faster to randomly vary things and filter out what's less useful as a way to simulate creativity.
(November 5, 2014 at 6:24 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:
(November 5, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, and any idea when you're going to admit you were wrong about the BGV theorem, yet?
I wouldn't hold your breath. Correspondence with reality doesn't appear to be high on his list of priorities.
That's the fun. I get to point out something that'll make him flee to the hills every time, and the credibility of his arguments will plummet in return. If he argues back, then he'll look like a crazy person, because video doesn't lie. And we all know he's not going to admit he was wrong, as he's a creationist.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(November 5, 2014 at 4:37 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: LOLOLOL.
"'Lots of good research' on the existence of 'Big Foot,'" you say? This wouldn't be "good research" in the same sense that you believe there is "good historical evidence" for Zombie Jesus, right?
It would have helped if you looked at the context at which I made the statement.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:37 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: (Who then, according to unknown authors writing decades later, conveniently floated off to outer space before anyone outside of his inner circle could verify his apparently unfamiliar identity).
Ha! Good one, kiddo.
For his identity to be so unfamiliar, he sure as hell left a legacy behind that is unlike any other person in history. His legacy surpassed Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Christoper Columbus, George Washington, etc..and right now, billions of people worship him to this day, as Christianity is the world's biggest religion, as it has the most followers.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:37 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: LOLOLOL.
"'Lots of good research' on the existence of 'Big Foot,'" you say? This wouldn't be "good research" in the same sense that you believe there is "good historical evidence" for Zombie Jesus, right?
It would have helped if you looked at the context at which I made the statement.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:37 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: (Who then, according to unknown authors writing decades later, conveniently floated off to outer space before anyone outside of his inner circle could verify his apparently unfamiliar identity).
Ha! Good one, kiddo.
For his identity to be so unfamiliar, he sure as hell left a legacy behind that is unlike any other person in history. His legacy surpassed Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Christoper Columbus, George Washington, etc..and right now, billions of people worship him to this day, as Christianity is the world's biggest religion, as it has the most followers.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm)coldwx Wrote: The question was corroboration from other sources. Do you deny that the preservation of the mummy and the examination of the same is not an external corroborating source? Seriously? The mummy itself has been examined by hundreds of "external" sources.
Apparently you are still confused on what "external Egyptian sources" mean, and it is very unfortunate.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm)coldwx Wrote: The tomb itself was examined by "external" sources.
very unfortunate.
(November 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm)coldwx Wrote: This is not hard. You gave a poor challenge and you were rightly criticized for it. Not admitting you failed on this regard gives the appearance of simply arguing to be a contrarian.
Also, the Amarna letters possibly mentions Tut
(November 5, 2014 at 6:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: For his identity to be so unfamiliar, he sure as hell left a legacy behind that is unlike any other person in history. His legacy surpassed Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Christoper Columbus, George Washington, etc..and right now, billions of people worship him to this day, as Christianity is the world's biggest religion, as it has the most followers.
Not bad for an unknown guy.
Oh, so now you're going to pretend that the christian religion didn't have churches and demagogues and so on, constantly stoking the fires of religious faith, up to and including violently eradicating or ostracizing anyone who disagreed with them?
You and I both know that the current state of your religion was not the work of just one man, so quit pretending.
And while you're at it, you should admit that you were wrong about the BGV theorem, and that you didn't do any research before you talked about it.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(November 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Beccs Wrote: Not to mention that we have his DNA and have confirmed his lineage.
Oh, the stupid is strong with this one.
Reading comprehension is important, people. The challenge was to give me one EXTERNAL Egyptian source that can corroborate the existence of King Tut. Do you two know what "external" means? That means corroborating sources OUTSIDE of Egypt, not WITHIN Egypt.
SMH.
That external means 'outside of Egypt' is a standard you've made up. We'd be perfectly happy for external sources about Jesus within Jerusalem contemporary to the time he was supposed to be there. 'External' is 'external to the document where the claim is made', not 'external to the country the claim is made'.
(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: What is stupid? The fact that I asked for external Egyptian evidence for King Tut's existence, or the fact that you are unable to provide an answer for it?
That you asked for evidence of King Tut's existence external to Egypt. Evidence external to Egypt is unnecessary to reasonably confirm the existence of the boy king, just as evidence external to Palestine is unecessary to confirm the existence of an historical Jesus. Asking for corroborating evidence outside the region the corroborating evidence would most likely be seems...kind of random.
(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Bullcrap. When you say "lots of good science", that is synanomous with "lots of good research". Well, there has been "lots of good research" on the existence of Big Foot...but so far, no one has been able to produce a body
Analogies are not your strong point.
(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Before you can explain where consciousness came from, you have to explain where did life come from...because you can't have consciousness without life.
Nonsense. We could figure out the origin of life tomorrow without being one step closer to explaining consciousness, and vice versa.
November 5, 2014 at 6:37 pm (This post was last modified: November 5, 2014 at 6:40 pm by Losty.)
(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Lets take away all of the fluff and feathers for a minute. Let's take away all of the technical babble, all of the rhetoric for just a second.
I can't speak for every religion, but I am a Christian theist. Now what does that imply? Well, that would mean that I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind, and that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
That is basically my belief in a nut shell. Now, if you are an atheist, you may find my beliefs laughable, sickening, stupid, etc....which is fine, Christianity isn't for everyone because after all, Jesus said "But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it." (Matt 7:14).
But as an atheist, here is what you have to believe...you have to believe that billions of years ago before humanity, dead matter was floating around in space...and for whatever reason, suddenly, this dead matter "came to life". Not only did it come to life, but it came to life and began thinking, talking, and having sex.
Just think about that for a second. This non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE. For the life of me, I just can't get myself to believe that, even if I tried. I just don't understand how naturalism/atheism is a more reasonable position than theism.
You have to believe that a process that can't think or see, created consciousness. So consciousness came from a process that can't think??
I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Actually to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything. For example, I am an atheist and I believe the world was created by a plate of spaghetti. I believe that life came into existence because on top of that spaghetti there was a meatball all covered in cheese.
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
very unfortunate.
