The nature of evidence

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Hey! You are being unfair there! When I posted the links on the topic about "Heaven" a mod came to me and asked me I couldn't post any links until I don't know what, and now you are insulting me and calling me everything because I didn't!?
And not only that, you assume that "He just wants to graduate from college so he can start lying to his own little church and rape all of the altar boys.", what is the evidence for this claim? If you would knew what you are talking about you wouldn't have said it, first of all, the cases of paedophilia happened in the Catholic Church, not in the Orthodox Church, where we have no "altar boys" and priests get married before ordination, so before insulting me you can get documented. I am not going to insult back because it is not my style, I am educated and you are an atheist, how can I expect some education, after all? It is funny how all of you overuse the word evidence when you did not provide any evidence for your beliefs either, which are just that, beliefs.

Yes, the original article was posted by Clark Carlton, and, no matter what any moderator says, since now I will be posting every source even if they bann me for infringing the rules, alright?
Do any of you have anything to say about said article, which is why I posted it?

Plagiarism without citation is, as you can see, highly frowned upon, here. All you have to do is tell us when your words are not your own, and we'll deal with your references. Pretending you understand something when you're simply passing off the words of others as your own is extremely bad form.

From whence do you (or he) get the idea that order cannot come from disorder? There is nothing about cosmology or evolution that defies the laws of physics. Using rocks in an English letter formation does seem to defy the laws of physics, and thus gives indication of human interaction; none of that is true for the formation of stars by gravity, the ignition of fusion by same, and the production of the higher elements by fusion, thrown out into the cosmos when the star burns up most of its fuel and starts reacting higher elements (edit to add: before going nova, and thus flinging the materials outward). As Sagan once famously said, "We are star stuff."

If you're referring to the common claim among the Intelligent Design crowd that biomolecules cannot form without intervention, I'm curious to know why you would think that was a valid claim, given that 99.999% of the scientific world rejects that claim. Do you think almost literally every biologist (including the many biologists out there who are Christians, etc.) on the planet is delusional? Do you think they don't "really" know how biochemistry creates the order we see? Or is it more likely that people with a specific agenda to protect their pet religion might have a motive to mislead you (or even themselves) by talking about order and information in the way they do?

To put it another way, think of a molecule of water: two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, which can only form one way due to the way their electrons interact... it always forms a 104.5 degree angle because of the lone-pair electrons of the oxygen atom turning it into an effective tetrahedral shape. From this result, you have a "bent" molecule, instead of simply H-O-H in a straight line, and thus we get things like snowflakes because of the way those bent molecules interact when under certain freezing conditions. From mere atoms, floating about, into order (snowflakes), with no intervention. Biomolecules, though much more complex in shape and interactions, work by the same physical means. It's just Atomic Theory (physics) acting on chemical interactions.

It's certainly nothing to do with rocks on a beach, and it's hard to grasp why anyone would honestly think it was.

[Mister Agenda]

The thing about rocks on the beach spelling something out is that we immediately know the source because we're very familiar with that source. We know that humans do that sort of thing. That's why we don't think the ocean just washed them up that way.

What someone is saying when they say rocks spelling out letters on the sand, which is what alerts us to its artificiality, means that other things we find in nature that don't share the properties of the order of the rocks, actually DO share the order of the rocks. The sand is as artificial as the rock message that is distinguished from the sand by its artificiality, because if the rock message is artificial, the sand non-message must be too.

In other words, they are babbling incoherently.

[abaris]

Hello.

I have listened and witnessed that, when debating about God, the main questions that is present within the atheist party is that they do not believe in God because there is no evidence for Him.

You believe in a god that created everything, and said go created humans as his masterpiece, do you?

If so, the evidence is piled up against such a being, unless he graduated from amoeba god to dinosaur, mammal, primate god, until he finally found his calling to be human god. But even there he had to make a choice between Australopitecus, Cro-Magnon, Neandertals or Homo Sapiens Sapiens, to name only a few. Although Sapiens is often up for debate.

If you don't subscribe to any of the mostly undebated facts of science, you will never understand why there's no reason to believe in any of the scripted god. Yours isn't even the only one to not believe in, only one in a very long chain with many branches.

[Edwardo Piet]

Since this fucking cunt has ignored me repeatedly and been rude to everyone else I give up trying to be nice to him.

Wryetui, I am going to ignore your posts from now on you worthless cunt.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I have listened and witnessed that, when debating about God, the main questions that is present within the atheist party is that they do not believe in God because there is no evidence for Him.

That isn't questions. You moron.

[The Valkyrie]

I will prove my atheist claim.

"I don't believe in gods." is my claim.

My evidence is that I'm an atheist.

That's the only particular atheist claim I make.

Practically anything else you're asking is covered by science, not atheism.

[Wryetui]

I will prove my atheist claim.

"I don't believe in gods." is my claim.

My evidence is that I'm an atheist.

That's the only particular atheist claim I make.

Practically anything else you're asking is covered by science, not atheism.

No, your claim is "Christianity is a lie" (and not only, also Islam, Judaism and the other religions of the world) and that needs evidence. If you are calling someone a liar you should be based on something, right?

[bennyboy]

I will prove my atheist claim.

"I don't believe in gods." is my claim.

My evidence is that I'm an atheist.

That's the only particular atheist claim I make.

Practically anything else you're asking is covered by science, not atheism.

No, your claim is "Christianity is a lie" (and not only, also Islam, Judaism and the other religions of the world) and that needs evidence. If you are calling someone a liar you should be based on something, right?

Christianity is a lie because its most central tenets are founded on a person doing things that people are not able to do.  It's a lie because it claims we've been saved, when anyone can look around the world and see that we haven't been.  It's a lie because it asserts that an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God exists, when babies die painful deaths every couple of minutes.

So I'll say it. . . Christianity is a lie.  It's a social club, a tool of control of the weak-minded and gullible, and most importantly, a vehicle for self-delusion.  It gives a promise of wealth when one is poor, a promise of freedom when one is enslaved, and a promise of immortality when one's days are numbered.

And the evidence for all this?  A book, a bunch of people with feelings, and religious institutions which pretend to act as intermediaries between those who are oppressed and the One who is meant to have liberated them thousands of years ago.

And the motivator for belief? A threat of infinite suffering should one dare to think rather than blindly to believe, taught to children too innocent and gullible to know what assholes their parents are being by taking parenting shortcuts-- demanding obedience under fear of threats rather than actually teaching kids about the real world. In a sane world, this kind of indoctrination would be labeled what it really is: pyschological torture and child abuse.

Lies.  Lies, lies lies lies lies.

LIES.

There.  Not only have I claimed Christianity is a collection of lies, I've outlined my basis for believing so.  Your turn.

[ignoramus]

Since this fucking cunt has ignored me repeatedly and been rude to everyone else I give up trying to be nice to him.

Wryetui, I am going to ignore your posts from now on you worthless cunt.

To beat a monster, sometimes you become one.....
Be happy! Be a happy turtly monster.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yes, the original article was posted by Clark Carlton, and, no matter what any moderator says, since now I will be posting every source even if they bann me for infringing the rules, alright?
Do any of you have anything to say about said article, which is why I posted it?

You're missing the point. If you want to post articles written by other people, by all means do so. But failing to attribute authorship in an effort to pass the work off as your own makes you a thief. 'Thou shalt not steal.'

And no, I have nothing to say about the article.

Boru