Evidence Against God

[Abishalom]

Do you know what a predisposition is? There a difference between believing a concept and having a predisposition. A belief in a concept requires conditioning. A predisposition is involuntary and does not have to be taught.

My point answering somebody's claim of that a baby is naturally an atheist. This is wrong. Humans have a natural predisposition to belief in a higher being and that everything in the natural world has a purpose.

I understand you want to have it both ways but it cannot be.

If you say that a baby believes in god he is a theist. This is clearly not a substantive claim.

If a baby lacks belief in a god then it is an atheist. Resorting to saying they have a "predisposition" to belief in god is first highly questionable and second it is still not a belief in god. Hence, babies do not believe in god.

A predisposition does not equal a belief. A predisposition to learn language, one of the actual predispositions a human possesses, does not mean that a baby understands language.

Well I agree with you that a predisposition does not equate to a belief. But if you go back and read my post you will see that I never said that. In fact my example is similar to the one you gave about human predisposition to language.

You must understand that I posted this in response to someone claiming that babies are naturally atheist. I simply said that there was scientific studies suggesting that babies had a predisposition to belief in God or that a higher power is at work and that everything had a purpose.

---

Firstly, yes you have and secondly you didn't ask me that question but I've sure as hell been waiting for it:
Have you ever looked at the human respiratory system? Its horribly inefficient and flawed, it gets a fraction the amount of oxygen out of air thats possible. Thats why you could breathe in and out of a paper bag for quite sometime, because what you breathe out still has alot of oxygen in it.
Yet according to religious texts God is an omnipotent, perfect being... and we are "made in his image". Thats clearly not the case otherwise these obvious flaws wouldn't be there.
The only plausible realization someone can come to is that the entire concept is complete bullshit.
I've got plenty more examples if you'd like. :-)

This was in my very first post...
"If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?"
...I guess you didn't realize I actually asked this question because you were too busy saying that this quote meant that natural evidence either doesn't count or doesn't exist.

Anyway, our friend Paul has answered the question (honestly). As for your respiratory system example. Obviously you're still breathing so it must work just fine. And if you're not getting enough oxygen that has more to do with your diet and your environment than your design. We were designed to eat mainly fruits and vegetables (no I'm not a vegetarian) and to breath in oxygen not the chemicals that pollute the air.

[The Grand Nudger]

Trouble with your statement, is that we weren't "designed" at all. "Happened upon" fits better.

(didn't I answer that question "honestly" pages ago btw?)

[Minimalist]

You must understand that I posted this in response to someone claiming that babies are naturally atheist.

Babies don't know anything about anything except how to suck on a tit. It takes idiot parents to shove whatever variant of god bullshit they happen to believe into the kids head to turn them into a little carbon-copy jesus/allah freak.

I'm sure you know the type.

[Welsh cake]

Humans have a natural predisposition to belief in a higher being and that everything in the natural world has a purpose.

Those Buddhist babies must give you nightmares.

Also, stop calling everyone who disagrees with you and/or refutes your claims a liar.

Childish arsewipe. >.>

[Abishalom]

Humans have a natural predisposition to belief in a higher being and that everything in the natural world has a purpose.

Those Buddhist babies must give you nightmares.

Also, stop calling everyone who disagrees with you and/or refutes your claims a liar.

Childish arsewipe. >.>

Why would I have nightmares about Buddhist babies? I know atheist must have nightmares about Christian babies since they see Christians as PE #1.

BTW The only people I called liars were the people who claim I said something that I did not (so get over yourself).

[frankiej]

Christian babies

No such thing, darlin'.

[Welsh cake]

Why would I have nightmares about Buddhist babies?

And your homework for this weekend is "satire". I expect a 500-word essay and no goofing off.

I know atheist must have nightmares about Christian babies since they see Christians as PE #1.

BTW The only people I called liars were the people who claim I said something that I did not.

You mean they're liars whenever they quote you word-for-word or shut down your little semantic games?

Intellectual honesty is a bitch isn't it?

[Abishalom]

Why would I have nightmares about Buddhist babies?

And your homework for this weekend is "satire". I expect a 500-word essay and no goofing off.

I know atheist must have nightmares about Christian babies since they see Christians as PE #1.

BTW The only people I called liars were the people who claim I said something that I did not.

You mean they're liars whenever they quote you word-for-word or shut down your little semantic games?

Intellectual honesty is a bitch isn't it?

No they are liars when they quote me word for word and then claim I said something that is clearly not paralleled in the quotes.

BTW I was pretty sure you weren't serious about the Buddhist baby comment) the sarcasm was mirrored.

[Welsh cake]

No they are liars when they quote me word for word and then claim I said something that is clearly not paralleled in the quotes.

You've already insulted your own intelligence, don't presume you can insult ours as well.

BTW I was pretty sure you weren't serious about the Buddhist baby comment) the sarcasm was mirrored.

Having the hindsight to realise you fucked up is another bitch isn't it?

It can be a virtue when you accept it, learn from your mistake, and move on.

[Cyberman]

Apologies for this sudden reversal; I haven't really been following this thread since there's a limit to the amount of idiocy I can take in a day and my tolerance threshold, normally set low in any case, tends to fluctuate depending on my mood. However I simply won't be able to sleep if I don't harpoon this particular whopper:

Man made objects cannot orbit the sun, therefore the orbiting teapot cannot exist.

Manmade objects most certainly and abolutely can orbit the Sun. Meet:

* Helios-1 and -2, launched into heliocentric (Sun-centred) orbits of around 190 days;

* the now-retired and decommissioned Ulysses, launched from Discovery in 1990 into a 6.2 year heliocentric orbit; and

* STEREO, the Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory (I just love those painfully shoehorned NASA acronyms), consisting of two spacecraft - STEREO-Ahead and STEREO-Behind - launched in 2006 into heliocentric orbits of 346 and 388 days respectively on an eight-year mission to completely map the Sun in 3D.

There you go - five manmade and sun-orbiting teapots for you. Ready to retract your assertion now? I'll wait.