Evidence God Exists: Part II

[tavarish]

As convincing evidence is an impossible requirement, you're as ignorant as a non questioning Christian (I don't mean that badly. Why should either of you know?). You're both as bad.

LOL. Let's all just believe whatever the fuck we want and make our own truths.

[fr0d0]

Yep, you can always join Tav's crew.

[Minimalist]

As convincing evidence is an impossible requirement, you're as ignorant as a non questioning Christian (I don't mean that badly. Why should either of you know?). You're both as bad.

LOL. Let's all just believe whatever the fuck we want and make our own truths.

As good an explanation as any for there being in excess of 33,000 xtian sects.


Oh...and the money. That's another good explanation.

[tackattack]

@Thor I don't percieve you as being closed minded personaly, but that's not necessarily reflective of a group. I don't think there's been a conclusive study of closed minded ness in theist populations versus atheist I'd be up for passing out questionaires though.

[Thor]

As convincing evidence is an impossible requirement, you're as ignorant as a non questioning Christian (I don't mean that badly. Why should either of you know?). You're both as bad.

How is "convincing evidence" an "impossible requirement"? On the simplest level, I would be convinced of this deity's existence if he would just appear to me and demonstrate that he is, indeed, "God". Absent that, I would have to consider that your deity is real if you could show me the following:

That believers in a particular deity, when compared to nonbelievers,

1) have a significantly longer life expectancy.
2) are significantly wealthier.
3) have significantly lower rates of cancer.
4) have significantly lower rates of birth defects in their children.
5) experience significantly lower crime rates.
6) have significantly lower casualty rates among military personnel.
7) experience significantly less property damage from natural disasters.
8) have significantly lower rates of blindness, deafness and paralysis.
9) experience much lower rates of accidental death.
10) are significantly luckier (i.e., winning slot machine jackpots, lottery jackpots, game show prizes, etc.)
11) have much lower rates of miscarriage and stillbirth.

I could go on, but these eleven will do.

If you can show me where (for example) Christians live longer lives, are wealthier, have lower cancer rates, have lower rates of birth defects, blindness, paralysis, etc.... I would have to strongly consider the possibility that your deity is real. On the other hand, if believers experience the same rates as nonbelievers, I would have to conclude that either your deity doesn't look out for you or he doesn't exist at all.

---

@Thor I don't percieve you as being closed minded personaly, but that's not necessarily reflective of a group. I don't think there's been a conclusive study of closed minded ness in theist populations versus atheist I'd be up for passing out questionaires though.

Yes, the results from questionnaires would be interesting.

But, in my experience, it is the believers who are closed minded. And the YECs are the worst. You can show them evidence of the Earth's age and they just dismiss it. You can demonstrate to them that the planet is far more than 10,000 years old and they will come up with the most nonsensical bullshit to explain away the evidence. They'll insist that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time because that's the only way their absurd beliefs can be reconciled with the fact that dinosaurs existed. It's truly pathetic. And what really bothers me is that they teach this ignorance to their children.

[Minimalist]

Oops, Angel....

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3742.html


Looks like you jumped the gun.

[AngelThMan]

Oops, Angel....

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3742.html


Looks like you jumped the gun.

Not so fast.

Min, you are too dumb for words. It is you who has jumped the gun. Had a theist posted something so inaccurate here people would have ripped them a new one. But since you're for the atheist cause they decided to let it slide, or figured I wouldn't catch the gaffe.

What was discovered has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Scientists have synthesized a single-cell genome using laboratory chemicals. However, this genome would have to be incorporated into an existing, living cell for life to be created. As Craig Venter explains it, DNA is like software for living organisms. So in the same way that an artificial heart, or a synthetic body part can be built and incorporated into a living human being, it was only a matter of time before this software called genome could be constructed and incorporated into a living cell.

This has nothing to do with abiogenesis, or the experiments that have been conducted to prove it. So let's make something clear. A living cell has never been replicated from inanimate matter in a laboratory or elsewhere, and never will be.

[tavarish]

A living cell has never been created from inanimate matter in a laboratory nor elsewhere, and never will be.

You have a perfectly functioning mouth, you don't have to talk out of your ass so much, really.

[paintpooper]

A living cell has never been created from inanimate matter in a laboratory nor elsewhere, and never will be.


That last line is the definition of ignorance. So how did your God create life then hahaha. Silly Christians always trying to bash our science then you prove nothing on your side, just that it is how it is. Do you know the difference between inanimate matter and life? Everything is matter, I'm atoms your atoms this desk is atoms, and we follow the laws of physics of our universe.

[Ace Otana]

So let's make something clear. A living cell has never been replicated from inanimate matter in a laboratory or elsewhere, and never will be.

That was very arrogant.

I believe we can do just about anything if we have the knowledge and technology to do it.
It's getting ahold of that knowledge and technology that's the problem.
Also - life is made up of non-life.