Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists.

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:15:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If God does not exist, it is not a God at all, for a God to be God must exist.

Talking about different things here. Arn't we?

What is a God to you atheists?
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:17:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 5:15:30 PM, GodSands wrote:
If God does not exist, it is not a God at all, for a God to be God must exist.

WHAAAAAAT! My head just exploded.

If God does not exist, God does not exist. No need to go any further than that.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:20:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 5:15:30 PM, GodSands wrote:
If God does not exist, it is not a God at all, for a God to be God must exist.

Talking about different things here. Arn't we?

What is a God to you atheists?

You say that if something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Which is obvious.

And atheists don't believe in any gods, godsands. That's kind of the point.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:22:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 5:15:30 PM, GodSands wrote:
If God does not exist, it is not a God at all, for a God to be God must exist.

Agreed. I don't see any reason to believe in God.

Talking about different things here. Arn't we?
I don't think so...

What is a God to you atheists?
The father of the Universe, one who created it for Ultimate reasons.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:32:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Talking about different things here. Aren't we?
I don't think so...


So we are talking about different things because I believe in God. So God must exist in my eyes. Atheism denies the existing, theism accepts the existing.
Atheism denies the obvious making the obvious anything but. Its a free universe, nothing that has no proof for or against will become true for an individual.

Believing in God does not make you a Christian, it's just positive thinking. Why think negatively?
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:34:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Believing in God does not make you a Christian, it's just positive thinking. Why think negatively?

You be optimistic, I'll be realistic, and we'll see who's right in the end.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:37:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 12/9/2009 5:34:25 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Believing in God does not make you a Christian, it's just positive thinking. Why think negatively?

You be optimistic, I'll be realistic, and we'll see who's right in the end.


Who says being negative is being realistic, if that is the case, isn't being positive being realistic as well?
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:39:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 5:37:29 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 12/9/2009 5:34:25 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Believing in God does not make you a Christian, it's just positive thinking. Why think negatively?

You be optimistic, I'll be realistic, and we'll see who's right in the end.


Who says being negative is being realistic, if that is the case, isn't being positive being realistic as well?

I didn't say being negative is being realistic. I said that believing there is no anthropomorphic being named God, or at least that there is no evidence to suggest there is one, is being realistic. If that is seen as negative to you, so be it.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:40:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 5:32:26 PM, GodSands wrote:

Believing in God does not make you a Christian, it's just positive thinking. Why think negatively?

Believing in a celestial dictator is not positive thinking, sorry.

"[Religious belief] is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you - who must, indeed, subject you - to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life - I say, of your life - before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead." - Christopher Hitchins
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:42:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 5:32:26 PM, GodSands wrote:

Believing in God does not make you a Christian, it's just positive thinking. Why think negatively?

I don't think negatively, I just have no reason to think God exists. I think positively in that I accept and embrace the life/experience that I have.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:43:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 5:32:26 PM, GodSands wrote:
Talking about different things here. Aren't we?
I don't think so...


So we are talking about different things because I believe in God. So God must exist in my eyes. Atheism denies the existing, theism accepts the existing.
Atheism denies the obvious making the obvious anything but. Its a free universe, nothing that has no proof for or against will become true for an individual.

-Why is a god existing "the obvious?"

-And you are right, nothing that has any evidence for it has reason to be believed as true. Why, then, should I believe in gods?

Believing in God does not make you a Christian, it's just positive thinking. Why think negatively?

My perception of the universe relies on that it is completely free of "positive" or "negative." I imagine it as being objective and objectiveless, with no free will or value.

How could that be negative? It's wholly indifferent.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:45:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And geo's right.

If we are talking about the Christian god in particular, then I would view that as the complete opposite of "positive." The bible tells me that I will suffer for eternity if I do not follow very strict guidelines and restrictions.

I like my idea much better then that.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:48:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 12/9/2009 5:42:09 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/9/2009 5:32:26 PM, GodSands wrote:

Believing in God does not make you a Christian, it's just positive thinking. Why think negatively?

I don't think negatively, I just have no reason to think God exists. I think positively in that I accept and embrace the life/experience that I have.


No reason to believe in God = No reason to not believe in God. Your thinking negatively.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:54:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No reason to believe in God = No reason to not believe in God.

That's simply not true. Just because there is no certainty one way or the other, doesn't mean there's no probability which doesn't fall directly in the middle.

There's no reason to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I think you'll agree, but it's not a 100% certainty that his noodly goodness is not out there somewhere. Does that mean there's no reason to not believe in him?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:54:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 12/9/2009 5:43:41 PM, Harlan wrote:
At 12/9/2009 5:32:26 PM, GodSands wrote:
Talking about different things here. Aren't we?
I don't think so...


So we are talking about different things because I believe in God. So God must exist in my eyes. Atheism denies the existing, theism accepts the existing.
Atheism denies the obvious making the obvious anything but. Its a free universe, nothing that has no proof for or against will become true for an individual.

-Why is a god existing "the obvious?"

-And you are right, nothing that has any evidence for it has reason to be believed as true. Why, then, should I believe in gods?

Believing in God does not make you a Christian, it's just positive thinking. Why think negatively?

My perception of the universe relies on that it is completely free of "positive" or "negative." I imagine it as being objective and objectiveless, with no free will or value.

How could that be negative? It's wholly indifferent.


Obvious, as in there needs to be a source that is no of matter, time and of space to create matter, time and space. The unchanging, eternal and universal God, just like logic, unchanging, eternal and universal. Isn't that obvious?

It's good to think positively that there is no negitives or positives. 'Yeah I understand.'

It's nice to think WE don't have to change, I liked that thought for a while, then reality dawned on me. Who is wrong, God or humans?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:56:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You get a kick out of posting this stuff in the education forum, don't you?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 6:03:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 12/9/2009 5:54:08 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
No reason to believe in God = No reason to not believe in God.

That's simply not true. Just because there is no certainty one way or the other, doesn't mean there's no probability which doesn't fall directly in the middle.

There's no reason to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I think you'll agree, but it's not a 100% certainty that his noodly goodness is not out there somewhere. Does that mean there's no reason to not believe in him?


The FSM is a joke, man made joke consciously thought up to ditto the exact notion of God. Like a foodprint ontop of another. The original notion of God is universal, I am sure because of that, the joke is also. It had to happen, the human mind endeavored it to, just like the moon rotating around the earth, this FSM or something like it, would come around at one point. It fits in with Platos forms perfectly just like the perfect form of the apple. Laugh it up, gain nothing, your feeding the inevitable.

There is no middle, you either have a reason or you do not. Believe in God or do not.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 6:05:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 12/9/2009 5:56:33 PM, Maikuru wrote:
You get a kick out of posting this stuff in the education forum, don't you?

Don't like religion, although I would be fine in posting topics in religion, why not here, isn't everything education in some form?
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 6:15:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 6:03:23 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 12/9/2009 5:54:08 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
No reason to believe in God = No reason to not believe in God.

That's simply not true. Just because there is no certainty one way or the other, doesn't mean there's no probability which doesn't fall directly in the middle.

There's no reason to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I think you'll agree, but it's not a 100% certainty that his noodly goodness is not out there somewhere. Does that mean there's no reason to not believe in him?


The FSM is a joke, man made joke consciously thought up to ditto the exact notion of God.

Fair call. Insert Allah, Ra, Zeus, Wotan, Vishnu, Rama, Shangdi, instead of FSM. These are not jokes, these are gods worshipped by people, some for millenia longer than your particular deity. They all have the same amount of evidence suggesting their existence... none.

There is no middle, you either have a reason or you do not. Believe in God or do not.

That's correct. My point was that just because there is no certainty one way or the other, the probability of a particular belief being true is not always at the 50:50 mark.

It is entirely possible that the Sun will explode tomorrow and wipe out mankind. ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. But thanks to an extraordinary amount of science telling us this won't happen for another hundred billion years, I don't believe it will happen tomorrow. Am I being positive or just realistic?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 7:02:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Fair call. Insert Allah, Ra, Zeus, Wotan, Vishnu, Rama, Shangdi, instead of FSM. These are not jokes, these are gods worshipped by people, some for millenia longer than your particular deity. They all have the same amount of evidence suggesting their existence... none.

Yeah many of those god's and Fallen Angels. The rest are false, Christian God = 20 10 + 10 = Christianity, Islam = 26 etc... You can figure this out by learning about who the Christian God is and what He has done, it makes as much sense as 10 + 10 = 20. It really does.

That's correct. My point was that just because there is no certainty one way or the other, the probability of a particular belief being true is not always at the 50:50 mark. There being a God or not is.

It is entirely possible that the Sun will explode tomorrow and wipe out mankind. ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. But thanks to an extraordinary amount of science telling us this won't happen for another hundred billion years, I don't believe it will happen tomorrow. Am I being positive or just realistic?

Your being negative. The sun will not explode, and I meant it as if the moon rotates around the earth, the FSM will be thought up. Like the cube existing before the sqaure, God exists before the FSM, what could I do to make fun of the FSM?
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 7:25:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 7:02:31 PM, GodSands wrote:
Fair call. Insert Allah, Ra, Zeus, Wotan, Vishnu, Rama, Shangdi, instead of FSM. These are not jokes, these are gods worshipped by people, some for millenia longer than your particular deity. They all have the same amount of evidence suggesting their existence... none.

Yeah many of those god's and Fallen Angels. The rest are false, Christian God = 20 10 + 10 = Christianity, Islam = 26 etc... You can figure this out by learning about who the Christian God is and what He has done, it makes as much sense as 10 + 10 = 20. It really does.

First of all the maths you've presented is meaningless and baseless. It's just your way of saying "Christianity is true, every other religion is false", but you believe by putting it in terms of mathematical equations it looks more correct. It doesn't.

Secondly, I have learned everything there is to know about the character named God from the novel named the Bible. I have also learned everything there is to know about the character named "A Square" from the novel Flatland (my favorite book). Making the leap to believing in either of these characters existing in reality would require some extraordinary evidence. Please present it.

Your being negative. The sun will not explode,

Errm... yes it will. It is a star, stars reach the end of their lifetime and essentially explode. Every piece of scientific evidence leads to the conclusion that this won't happen to our star for billions of years, which is why I don't believe it will happen tomorrow, although it's still a possibility (isn't everything?). I'm not being positive or negative in my belief, I'm being realistic.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org...

and I meant it as if the moon rotates around the earth, the FSM will be thought up. Like the cube existing before the sqaure, God exists before the FSM, what could I do to make fun of the FSM?

Nothing, it's already a parody of creationism. The FSM is silly on purpose, creationism is unwittingly silly, which is why it deserves to be made fun of.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 7:43:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 12/9/2009 7:25:39 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 12/9/2009 7:02:31 PM, GodSands wrote:
Fair call. Insert Allah, Ra, Zeus, Wotan, Vishnu, Rama, Shangdi, instead of FSM. These are not jokes, these are gods worshipped by people, some for millenia longer than your particular deity. They all have the same amount of evidence suggesting their existence... none.

Yeah many of those god's and Fallen Angels. The rest are false, Christian God = 20 10 + 10 = Christianity, Islam = 26 etc... You can figure this out by learning about who the Christian God is and what He has done, it makes as much sense as 10 + 10 = 20. It really does.

First of all the maths you've presented is meaningless and baseless. It's just your way of saying "Christianity is true, every other religion is false", but you believe by putting it in terms of mathematical equations it looks more correct. It doesn't.

Understanding who the Christian God is will make you understand that Christianity is 10 + 10 and God is 20. Simples. What doesn't make sense?

Secondly, I have learned everything there is to know about the character named God from the novel named the Bible. I have also learned everything there is to know about the character named "A Square" from the novel Flatland (my favorite book). Making the leap to believing in either of these characters existing in reality would require some extraordinary evidence. Please present it.

Making a leap to believe there is no God, present it please, the point is that it goes on forever, for what would you need first? The evidence of God, or for you to change? For if there is evidence it is there now, but you cannot see it so you need to change, but you expect the evidence to change you, both happen at the same time, Jesus is that evidence. Same goes for me, but I have been changed once, can't go back as I have found the truth.

: Errm... yes it will. It is a star, stars reach the end of their lifetime and essentially explode. Every piece of scientific evidence leads to the conclusion that this won't happen to our star for billions of years, which is why I don't believe it will happen tomorrow, although it's still a possibility (isn't everything?). I'm not being positive or negative in my belief, I'm being realistic.

Yes the sun will die, but not tomorrow. Jesus will return before it does anyway (Child like mind). Yes you are being realistic but you are being negative because you can also say, and believe that the sun will not die tomorrow.

Nothing, it's already a parody of creationism. The FSM is silly on purpose, creationism is unwittingly silly, which is why it deserves to be made fun of.


After speaking to me, most people show their true colours, aren't really an agnostic, more like an atheist.

Creationism is silly, evolution isn't then I suppose, tell me if evolution is scientific, then why use time? Even if evolution is true, it is not science because science is for man and man cannot live 20 millions years.

Wouldn't it be simpler to explain how evolution works without speaking of time, while doing so the class gets the sensation that millions of years have passed. By speaking of time, you must keep to the same notion, let me explain; let's say I am doing an experiment on rust, I get a jar and fill it with water, I take some iron and drop it into the jar of water. 10 days later I find out that the iron has rusted with particles of rusted iron at the bottom of the jar.
The key thing to know here is that the iron is still iron, thus time is not an issue since nothing has changed in respects of the iron remains to be iron.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 7:55:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
After speaking to me, most people show their true colours, aren't really an agnostic, more like an atheist.

You're comparing apples and oranges. "Agnostic" and "gnostic" are statements of knowledge, "atheist" and "theist" are statements of belief.

I am an "agnostic atheist". The "agnostic" part indicates that I am not so stubborn as to assume I know everything there is to know about everything. The "atheist" part indicates that there is nothing about a creator god which can't be explained better, with more evidence, more eloquently using science, so I don't believe there is any reason to believe in a creator being.

Creationism is silly, evolution isn't then I suppose, tell me if evolution is scientific, then why use time? Even if evolution is true, it is not science because science is for man and man cannot live 20 millions years.

This just doesn't make sense. At all.

What does time have to do with it? What do you mean science is for man? And although a man can't live for 20 million years, through the scientific method we can peer BILLIONS of years into the past. We don't need to see the future to know evolution is true, just the past.

Wouldn't it be simpler to explain how evolution works without speaking of time, while doing so the class gets the sensation that millions of years have passed. By speaking of time, you must keep to the same notion, let me explain; let's say I am doing an experiment on rust, I get a jar and fill it with water, I take some iron and drop it into the jar of water. 10 days later I find out that the iron has rusted with particles of rusted iron at the bottom of the jar.
The key thing to know here is that the iron is still iron, thus time is not an issue since nothing has changed in respects of the iron remains to be iron.

Guh?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 8:43:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 12/9/2009 7:55:20 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
After speaking to me, most people show their true colours, aren't really an agnostic, more like an atheist.

You're comparing apples and oranges. "Agnostic" and "gnostic" are statements of knowledge, "atheist" and "theist" are statements of belief.

I am an "agnostic atheist". The "agnostic" part indicates that I am not so stubborn as to assume I know everything there is to know about everything. The "atheist" part indicates that there is nothing about a creator god which can't be explained better, with more evidence, more eloquently using science, so I don't believe there is any reason to believe in a creator being.

Creationism is silly, evolution isn't then I suppose, tell me if evolution is scientific, then why use time? Even if evolution is true, it is not science because science is for man and man cannot live 20 millions years.

This just doesn't make sense. At all.

What does time have to do with it? What do you mean science is for man? And although a man can't live for 20 million years, through the scientific method we can peer BILLIONS of years into the past. We don't need to see the future to know evolution is true, just the past.

Wouldn't it be simpler to explain how evolution works without speaking of time, while doing so the class gets the sensation that millions of years have passed. By speaking of time, you must keep to the same notion, let me explain; let's say I am doing an experiment on rust, I get a jar and fill it with water, I take some iron and drop it into the jar of water. 10 days later I find out that the iron has rusted with particles of rusted iron at the bottom of the jar.
The key thing to know here is that the iron is still iron, thus time is not an issue since nothing has changed in respects of the iron remains to be iron.

Guh?


Question me on evolution.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 8:54:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 8:43:26 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 12/9/2009 7:55:20 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
After speaking to me, most people show their true colours, aren't really an agnostic, more like an atheist.

You're comparing apples and oranges. "Agnostic" and "gnostic" are statements of knowledge, "atheist" and "theist" are statements of belief.

I am an "agnostic atheist". The "agnostic" part indicates that I am not so stubborn as to assume I know everything there is to know about everything. The "atheist" part indicates that there is nothing about a creator god which can't be explained better, with more evidence, more eloquently using science, so I don't believe there is any reason to believe in a creator being.

Creationism is silly, evolution isn't then I suppose, tell me if evolution is scientific, then why use time? Even if evolution is true, it is not science because science is for man and man cannot live 20 millions years.

This just doesn't make sense. At all.

What does time have to do with it? What do you mean science is for man? And although a man can't live for 20 million years, through the scientific method we can peer BILLIONS of years into the past. We don't need to see the future to know evolution is true, just the past.

Wouldn't it be simpler to explain how evolution works without speaking of time, while doing so the class gets the sensation that millions of years have passed. By speaking of time, you must keep to the same notion, let me explain; let's say I am doing an experiment on rust, I get a jar and fill it with water, I take some iron and drop it into the jar of water. 10 days later I find out that the iron has rusted with particles of rusted iron at the bottom of the jar.
The key thing to know here is that the iron is still iron, thus time is not an issue since nothing has changed in respects of the iron remains to be iron.

Guh?


Question me on evolution.

No need to... I understand it quite well and know it is much a fact as anything else science has elucidated for us. You are the one who should be asking questions.

I'm not going to question a blind person on art.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 9:00:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
OP

What GodSands has mentioned is called the ontalogical argument. It doesn't work.

If one defines "God" as "perfect in every way", then it must exist. Therefore, God exists.
If one defines "despak" as the "antigravity particle that exists", then it must exist. Therefore, despaks exist.

Exposure: Ontalogical arguments don't work. They rely on circlular reasoning.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 9:17:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 12/9/2009 9:00:12 PM, wjmelements wrote:
OP

What GodSands has mentioned is called the ontalogical argument. It doesn't work.

If one defines "God" as "perfect in every way", then it must exist. Therefore, God exists.
If one defines "despak" as the "antigravity particle that exists", then it must exist. Therefore, despaks exist.

Exposure: Ontalogical arguments don't work. They rely on circlular reasoning.</em

The truth is circular, evolution is cirular and so is the Bible in relation to God, for the Bible says that God exist, and the Bible is God's Word therefore the Bible must be true. Is there any other alternatives? No. Evolution is true because man says it is science and science is correct and evolution is sceince. Same thing going on there too.

Circular reasoning leads to the truth, or the truth is circular.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 9:23:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Look, GodSands, an argument against evolution does not make your argument valid. If it's based on circular reasoning, then it's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 9:24:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 9:00:12 PM, wjmelements wrote:
OP

What GodSands has mentioned is called the ontalogical argument. It doesn't work.

If one defines "God" as "perfect in every way", then it must exist. Therefore, God exists.
If one defines "despak" as the "antigravity particle that exists", then it must exist. Therefore, despaks exist.

Exposure: Ontalogical arguments don't work. They rely on circlular reasoning.

TY for posting, because now I don't have to >.>
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.