I guarantee no atheist can stand to debate Christianity with me. (come at me)

[ThaWorldIsYours]

If God wants us to believe in him, why doesn't he just show himself? Why can't he make his face appear in the sky and say "hey guys, its me. God. Just checkin in, seein how you guys are doing."

If your answer to this is "because if it was that easy, then EVERYONE would believe," then I ask you, isn't that the point? God wants everyone to believe in his existence (seems a little petty for an all-powerful, omniscient being).

If God truly loves all his children and wants us all to believe in him, and live in the kingdom of heaven, then why doesn't he just throw us a ****ing bone? You can still have free will. You could choose to believe that the big face in the sky was real, or you could choose to believe it was a hologram put there by the government, or you could choose to say "**** it, I don't care if he is real, I'm still going to sin like its going out of style because I don't give a ****."

I just think the Bible's description of God makes him sound childish, and not like an all-powerful being. He sure seems to have a lot of human traits for being a God. He's jealous (the whole false idols thing), he's petty (believe in me or else you'll go to hell!!), he's vengeful (lots of examples of this).

But then he supposedly "loves all his children!!! awwwww " but he will send you to a pit of flames for eternity if you even use the logic and reason he instilled in you to ponder his existence that he has given you no valid reason to believe in.


I dunno..... just some thoughts.

For the record i"m not an athiest, I'd say I'm either a 3 or a 4 on the Dawkins scale.

[basement iron]

The only thing the OP has actually proven is that he is illiterate of Cosmology and Evolutionary Biology.

Just let the thread die so he can disappear and never start a thread again like the thousands of bible school dolts before him.

[bradlehman]

The only thing the OP has actually proven is that he is illiterate of Cosmology and Evolutionary Biology.

Just let the thread die so he can disappear and never start a thread again like the thousands of bible school dolts before him.

Unlikely, since he does this all the time. Strong join date by the way, Bro Namath.

[SezerTheGeezer]

How are you going to start off the debate?

Hi I'm an adult male and I believe that Noah built an arc and put 2 of every species of animal on the planet on there.

Grow up you ****ing turd.

[st_jimmy]

The flaws you find with it are merely your misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

I'll be happy to show you the light.

I can't prove to you he was the son of God

[An hero]

The only thing the OP has actually proven is that he is illiterate of Cosmology and Evolutionary Biology.

He actually doesn't know that much about Christianity either.

[NRKF84]

Questions for OP:

1. How old do you think the Earth is?

2. If your answer to #1 is less than millions of years...do you believe in creationism?

3. If your answer to #2 is yes, are you familiar with radiocarbon dating? How do you reconcile the two?

4. If you believe in creationism/intelligent design, do you completely disavow the modern scientific theory of evolution?

5. If your answer to #4 is yes, how do you explain the concept of antibiotic resistance?

6. If your answer to #4 is no, how do you reconcile your beliefs of creationism with those of evolution?

bump

[BootyBandit]

Can God make a cock so large that he himself could not take in his ass?

They call god, "he", and this means he has a penis - a fooking HUUUUUUUUGE penis.
How large is this infallible fallacy and what exactly is it used for?
Does god piitb with black holes?
Did he shrink it down some when he raped Mary?
Are the Earth and the moon his testicles and if so why is one so much bigger than the other?

[KTownGT]

went to catholic school my whole life never was told once that the earth is 10,000 yrs old and never saw it once in the bible.

Catholics are one of the most- if not the most- science accepting religions.

It's mostly different sects of Christianity(Southern Baptists, Lutherans, etc.).

[sickdevildog1]

Isn't the OP the one who just made a thread in the misc about people being mindless pawns? Especially when they want to actually *gasp* study and do homework while in college.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=131959883

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=127518353

[drpurple]

serious question;

what usefulness does prayer have?

[Harbinger]

The only difference is the Bible has many prophesies written thousands of years ago that have been fulfilled and are being fulfilled to this day. Check it and I guarantee it will blow your mind.

So you admit the prophecies haven't been fulfilled?

[vitalcerebral]

A lack of belief isn't a conclusion and it requires no evidence. You almost certainly don't believe that I have the world's only living unicorn in captivity at my house, but you didn't conclude that. You just don't believe it (put faith in my positive assertion) because there is no objective evidence to support it. People who say that God exists are making a positive assertion and need to support it with evidence. The people who don't believe the first group are not making any assertions about reality and do not need to present evidence that refutes the first group's unfounded claim.

A 'lack of evidence' is a form of evidence in and of itself, be that a lack of evidence for the existence of God or a lack of evidence to disprove his existence. In my childhood I used to try and move objects with my mind but no matter how hard I tried I never could. My failed attempts count as evidences that formed part of a thought process which is now the basis of my belief that I don't possess the ability to move objects with my mind.

Saying that god is statistically very improbable is not the same as saying he doesn't exist. Whether you think so or not, you and Richard Dawkins seem to have basically the same understanding.

I don't believe that the Dodgers will win the World Series, but I don't know for sure.

I don't believe that God exists, but I don't know for sure. = Agnostic atheist = Me = Richard Dawkins = Apparently, you.

No. The starting position is very different i.e.

(Agnostic) God may exist, but he may not. Alternatively. God might not exist but he might.

NOT

(Agnostic atheists/theist)I don't believe in God, but I'm not 100% sure, or I do believe in God but I'm not 100% sure.


Your 'default position' absolutely affects your interpretation of data and undermines any agnostic approach.

As an example I present a juxtaposition;

1- ''The probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1 in 10 to the power of 1010123'' - Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989.

An theist might response - God must exist therefore exist because the probability of the universe being suitable for life is too low to happen by chance.
A logical extension of the data a hand.

An atheist might response - Probabilities don't matter because we already exist.
Also a logical extension of the data at hand.


Similarly Stephen Unwin 'God equation' can have vastly different outcomes depending on the person performing the equation interpretation of the facts. Each persons score from the equation is different dependant on their levels of skepticism.

The difference between agnosticism and whatever you want to describe your view of atheism are vast!

EDIT: Here is the relevant text from my earlier post on this subject which you either didn't read or didn't understand. In any case, I've reproduced it below.

"Agnostic" comes from the Greek word "gnosis" meaning "knowledge."

Gnostic describes one who knows. Agnostic describes one who does not know.

Theism isn't about knowledge, it's about belief. A theist is one who believes in the existence of at least one deity. An atheist is one who does not believe in deities.

A gnostic theist is one who not only believes in God, but claims that they know for a fact that he exists.

A agnostic theist is one who believes in God but isn't 100% sure of his existence (most theists).

An agnostic atheist is one who does not believe in God but isn't 100% sure that God doesn't exist (almost all atheists).

A gnostic atheist is one who not only doesn't believe in God, but also claims to know for a fact that God doesn't exist (virtually no one is in this group).

All semantics in an ideological scramble for a logical 'high' ground which takes away from the real position (not philosophical meaning) of an agnostic.

If agnostic truly means 'one who does not know,' then a process by which one can reaches a conclusion and therefore belief cannot be based solely on the facts at hand. Why? - because you do not know enough to reach a conclusion.

Therefore a religious belief must be arrived at via two distinct ways which presents you and the notion of an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist with a few difficulties;

1. Interpretation of facts are not conclusive, the arrival at a belief is therefore governed by leap of faith or best guess. Atheists don't like the idea their supposed 'rational' as been governed in some way by faith because that would mean that they can no longer hold their logical high ground.

2. Interpretation of facts are conclusive, the arrival at a belief is governed by knowing. As a result of this know, you cannot be an agnostic.

You can't have it every which way you choose, trying to exist in two different ideologies is not a possible, especially when the definitions for one and the other are not ideologically compatible. The notion that they are is a fallacy.


Edit - and thanks for the neg An hero, interesting to see that 'nah bro,' was the best riposte you could come up with.

[BootyBandit]

Damn, Jeebus was hung. Must have gotten it from his daddy lol.
Yes jelly.

[bradlehman]

A 'lack of evidence' is a form of evidence in and of itself, be that a lack of evidence for the existence of God or a lack of evidence to disprove his existence. In my childhood I used to try and move objects with my mind but no matter how hard I tried I never could. My failed attempts count as evidences that formed part of a thought process which is now the basis of my belief that I don't possess the ability to move objects with my mind.




No. The starting position is very different i.e.

(Agnostic) God may exist, but he may not. Alternatively. God might not exist but he might.

NOT

(Agnostic atheists/theist)I don't believe in God, but I'm not 100% sure, or I do believe in God but I'm not 100% sure.


Your 'default position' absolutely affects your interpretation of data and undermines any agnostic approach.

As an example I present a juxtaposition;

1- ''The probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1 in 10 to the power of 1010123'' - Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989.

An theist might response - God must exist therefore exist because the probability of the universe being suitable for life is too low to happen by chance.
A logical extension of the data a hand.

An atheist might response - Probabilities don't matter because we already exist.
Also a logical extension of the data at hand.


Similarly Stephen Unwin 'God equation' can have vastly different outcomes depending on the person performing the equation interpretation of the facts. Each persons score from the equation is different dependant on their levels of skepticism.

The difference between agnosticism and whatever you want to describe your view of atheism are vast!



All semantics in an ideological scramble for a logical 'high' ground which takes away from the real position (not philosophical meaning) of an agnostic.

If agnostic truly means 'one who does not know,' then a process by which one can reaches a conclusion and therefore belief cannot be based solely on the facts at hand. Why? - because you do not know enough to reach a conclusion.

Therefore a religious belief must be arrived at via two distinct ways which presents you and the notion of an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist with a few difficulties;

1. Interpretation of facts are not conclusive, the arrival at a belief is therefore governed by leap of faith or best guess. Atheists don't like the idea their supposed 'rational' as been governed in some way by faith because that would mean that they can no longer hold their logical high ground.

2. Interpretation of facts are conclusive, the arrival at a belief is governed by knowing. As a result of this know, you cannot be an agnostic.

You can't have it every which way you choose, trying to exist in two different ideologies is not a possible, especially when the definitions for one and the other are not ideologically compatible. The notion that they are is a fallacy.


Edit - and thanks for the neg An hero, interesting to see that 'nah bro,' was the best riposte you could come up with.

Very well though out post but I suspect you still don't understand the point. Your definition of agnostic ("God may exist or he may not") is the same definition that describes the vast majority of atheists. I suspect that there are very few people out there who think that the possibilities of God existing or not existing are equiprobable. People who think that God may exist or he may not are going to either come down on the side of believing or not believing. If they come down on the side of believing, then they are agnostic theists. In the other case, they are agnostic atheists.

Things either exist or they don't. Most theists make a positive assertion about the existence of God. Atheists do not make a negative claim about the existence of God, although they might think it unlikely.

"If agnostic truly means 'one who does not know,' then a process by which one can reaches a conclusion and therefore belief cannot be based solely on the facts at hand. Why? - because you do not know enough to reach a conclusion."

This is exactly what atheists have been saying to theists since time immemorial. There is not enough information to justify a belief or a conclusion. There is objective data to support the idea that gods are unlikely (things don't start out complex; we can explain so many things without the supernatural definitions we previously relied on; etc.). There is none to support the idea that they are likely.

It's also important to remember that theists and atheists who claim to know that God does/doesn't exist don't actually know. They just claim to because they're stupid or intellectually irresponsible. The fact that their "faith" and "knowledge" aren't compatible isn't our problem.

I repeat: the default, given what we know (or ought to know if we've paid attention in school) about observable reality, is agnostic atheism because there is no evidence for a god, there is reason to think that supernatural beings are unlikely, and because we couldn't possibly be sure one way or the other.

[vitalcerebral]

Very well though out post but I suspect you still don't understand the point. Your definition of agnostic ("God may exist or he may not") is the same definition that describes the vast majority of atheists. I suspect that there are very few people out there who think that the possibilities of God existing or not existing are equiprobable. People who think that God may exist or he may not are going to either come down on the side of believing or not believing. If they come down on the side of believing, then they are agnostic theists. In the other case, they are agnostic atheists.

Things either exist or they don't. Most theists make a positive assertion about the existence of God. Atheists do not make a negative claim about the existence of God, although they might think it unlikely.

"If agnostic truly means 'one who does not know,' then a process by which one can reaches a conclusion and therefore belief cannot be based solely on the facts at hand. Why? - because you do not know enough to reach a conclusion."

This is exactly what atheists have been saying to theists since time immemorial. There is not enough information to justify a belief or a conclusion. There is objective data to support the idea that gods are unlikely (things don't start out complex; we can explain so many things without the supernatural definitions we previously relied on; etc.). There is none to support the idea that they are likely.

It's also important to remember that theists and atheists who claim to know that God does/doesn't exist don't actually know. They just claim to because they're stupid or intellectually irresponsible. The fact that their "faith" and "knowledge" aren't compatible isn't our problem.

I repeat: the default, given what we know (or ought to know if we've paid attention in school) about observable reality, is agnostic atheism because there is no evidence for a god, there is reason to think that supernatural beings are unlikely, and because we couldn't possibly be sure one way or the other.

I do understand what you are trying to say but I disagree, I'm sorry.

I don't know where all these agnostic atheists are of whom you speak who only ever suggest that god is unlikely because all encounters, in person, on the internet or otherwise are at direct odds to your depiction. The label agnostic atheist or agnostic theist I could believe at a stretch but all my experiences do not lend itself to your interpretation.

Again I refer to the titled book, 'The God Delusion,' which is deliberate in its attempts to belittle the notion of a god. There is no wriggle room or recourse, it's overt and in your face atheism despite all suggestions that it is not - his very first book 'the selfish gene' however was quite different and much more persuasive in that he merely presented the facts without the constant undertones of intellectual snobbery.


Moving on...

With regard to the burden of proof I agree to an extent however refer to my very first post in this thread. The entire universe functions in a manner which no physicist can currently understand;

Examples;
-Quantum Consciousness, when observing matter/energy directly it acts differently than when you don't observe it, almost like it knows it is being watched. These observations do not makes sense, cannot be simplified and a cannot be rationalized to fit into any of the standard models of physics.

-Quantum entanglement, two atoms despite being thousands of miles apart can be connected to one another and mimic each others states, so that when the physical properties of one is altered by humans the other also alters despite being untouched.

My point is that quantum mechanics demonstrates that there is a whole level of reality that is immeasurable, appears to 'speak in a language of mathematics', is interconnected, extremely weird and acts in ways which completely defies logic and all best attempts to reduce it to simplicity so it can be rationalized. They represent laws onto themselves and in some respects are stranger than the most creative fiction. Coupled that with the fact that the universe appears to act differently when consciously viewed it presents a problem in that we never be sure that the reality we interpret is the 'actual reality.' Psychology may also have something to say with this regard, how individuals interpret life, facts and view the world may have massive implications for this debate.

Based on these facts, what reasonable basis do I have to start making assumptions about anything when we don't even have a firm knowledge of what matter is, how it acts and whether or not it even exists never mind something as complex as a creator?



Not only is there much of the universe at this moment untestable and beyond the scope of science there is also a problem with existing scientific knowledge; some is completely ignored by atheists because it doesn't fit their world view and ignored even more so by radical theists because science is the 'devil.'

Example;
-Evolution via natural selection works greats on living organisms but doesn't appear to work on simple metabolic systems which don't appear to evolve (ref 1). Similarly, whilst ribozymes may be able to replicate themselves and select for the best replicators they don't appear to be able to spontaneously form by themselves (i.e. scientists must create them first), and there is no jump of point at which ribozymes stop functioning as enzymes and start to function as carriers of information or both (ref 2). The metabolism-first and the genetics/replication-first theories are confronted with difficulties (which apparently nobody knows anything about), as a result, biology at this moment is at an impasse; we know evolution works on living cells but there is no working model to show that the first cells evolved from a prehistoric soup.

How often does Dawkins talk about that? You should be mindful of where you get your information from, pop culture books are not peer reviewed, scientific articles are and even they need to read with a critical eye. Nevertheless I do believe a break through in this area will come though...

but evolution is not the end of it, when/if resolved, the debate will inevitably move on up the creation ladder, consider...

-The 'Anthropic Principle,' an in trend science theory that suggests that the fundamental mathematics constants of the universe are so precise that any slight variation in any principle that holds the whole thing together, gravity, anti-gravity would cause the entire universe to cease in existence. And when they talk about variation here they mean a million millionth of a decimal point. When Reductio ad absurdum is applied to this situation there are two outcomes, a creator or multiple universe neither of which are testable.



So when it is all said and done there is no logical default position to start from or indeed end at and no scientific argument that is persuasive enough to leave anybody utterly convinced. Both ideologies are as logical and as rational as the other, both are equally applicable to Reductio ad absurdum and both result in a somewhat satisfactory conclusion to how/why/what this is all about.


ref1- ''Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks constraints metabolism-first scenarios for the'' origin of life.''
ref2- ''A replicator was not involved in the origin of life''


*Edited...

[NRKF84]

Questions for OP:

1. How old do you think the Earth is?

2. If your answer to #1 is less than millions of years...do you believe in creationism?

3. If your answer to #2 is yes, are you familiar with radiocarbon dating? How do you reconcile the two?

4. If you believe in creationism/intelligent design, do you completely disavow the modern scientific theory of evolution?

5. If your answer to #4 is yes, how do you explain the concept of antibiotic resistance?

6. If your answer to #4 is no, how do you reconcile your beliefs of creationism with those of evolution?

bump

[angryleo]

why do you refer to god as "he"

[mistaballoonhan]

I can't prove to you he was the son of God

Jesus was the son of God, who came to die for the transgressions of men as a man himself. Calling him merely a man when he was in the form of man is misguided.

?