Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If I can't see it, it doesn't exist!

bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 8:15:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Stay cool dude.

You didn't. LMFAO
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 9:47:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

You must be a troll. No atheist says that if they cannot see it that it does not exist.

Can you see it?
Is there evidence for it?
Do we see its effect?
Can we confirm any of the above?

Dark matter and Dark energy have an effect on the universe, which we can see. That is why we know it is there.

There is evidence for evolution, a lot of evidence. That is why we know it happened and is happening.

The ONLY evidence for a god is anecdotal, and anecdotal evidence is not reliable. I accept that people can make a belief off of anecdotal evidence, but NOT a knowledge claim.
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 5:18:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Any atheist reading this, let me know if I am representing you wrong here and I will delete this remark (if I can... I'm not actually sure... If I can't, then I'll certainly speak out against it)

What Atheism is actually responding to is the Christian response that "God exists outside this universe (or, "God is Transcendenct") which is why we can't see Him."

In all honesty, it's no wonder why they reject this statement as-is. It sounds like people are trying to make faith an Epistemology, which it is not.

What science is saying by the evolutionary argument is "Look, here is a valid explanation inside this dimension and universe that we can see, observe, and test."

Now, bear with me when I say that I do not completely rule out Evolutionism as fact. Through my years, and the way that I have come to understand the book of Genesis (as well as Job) have led me to the conclusion that it is possible that Genesis was meant to be taken figuratively, and not literally. That is to say, the earth may well be more than 6,000 years old. It could be 14.3 billion years old, and this would still not contradict the creation story in Genesis. Indeed, it would merely confirm my beliefs that the creation story in Genesis was not meant to be taken at face value.

If anyone is curious as to how I came to this conclusion, don't hesitate to message me privately. No need to fill up this feed on that argument alone.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 5:42:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

I wonder how many would step off the edge of a cliff, after all they can't see gravity so in their view it doesn;t exist.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 5:42:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 9:47:04 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

You must be a troll. No atheist says that if they cannot see it that it does not exist.

Can you see it?
Is there evidence for it?
Do we see its effect?
Can we confirm any of the above?

Dark matter and Dark energy have an effect on the universe, which we can see. That is why we know it is there.

There is evidence for evolution, a lot of evidence. That is why we know it happened and is happening.

The ONLY evidence for a god is anecdotal, and anecdotal evidence is not reliable. I accept that people can make a belief off of anecdotal evidence, but NOT a knowledge claim.

In fact I have had more than one say just that to me.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 7:32:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

You spend hours on this site week after week and still fail to understand the simplest concepts regarding the atheist position. Why is this so difficult for you?
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 8:26:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 5:18:34 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Any atheist reading this, let me know if I am representing you wrong here and I will delete this remark (if I can... I'm not actually sure... If I can't, then I'll certainly speak out against it)

What Atheism is actually responding to is the Christian response that "God exists outside this universe (or, "God is Transcendenct") which is why we can't see Him."

In all honesty, it's no wonder why they reject this statement as-is. It sounds like people are trying to make faith an Epistemology, which it is not.

What science is saying by the evolutionary argument is "Look, here is a valid explanation inside this dimension and universe that we can see, observe, and test."

Now, bear with me when I say that I do not completely rule out Evolutionism as fact. Through my years, and the way that I have come to understand the book of Genesis (as well as Job) have led me to the conclusion that it is possible that Genesis was meant to be taken figuratively, and not literally. That is to say, the earth may well be more than 6,000 years old. It could be 14.3 billion years old, and this would still not contradict the creation story in Genesis. Indeed, it would merely confirm my beliefs that the creation story in Genesis was not meant to be taken at face value.

Well, first of all, there are a number of levels of meaning encoded into the Torah material. The story of creation and the Fall is foundational mythology meant to explain the metaphysical origins of both both physical reality, and consciousness. The Fall is necessary to arrive at consciousness. Corporeal existence is impossible without the knowledge of good and evil. Humans cannot live in the world in a state of innocence.

Every culture at some point developed a creation myth. Whether it was the Great Turtle carrying the world on its back, or a deity singing or speaking the world into existence, all cultures have this foundational mythology. It only makes sense to have a story about how the world began, with archetypal characters playing the part of primal forces. Considering these stories were designed to encapsulate and preserve accumulated knowledge in order to pass it on orally to future generations, it makes perfect sense.

That's not to say that primitive cultures didn't take these stories literally. They did, at least at the pedestrian level. However, the fact that many Christians take the myths literally today is a fairly recent development in terms of the overall timeline of Christian theological development. That being said, it really is disturbing to see the extent to which people still cling to magical thinking in the post-modern age. It demonstrates a widespread lack of critical thinking skills among the public at large.

I recently read the results of a study which demonstrated that the majority of Americans are actually functionally illiterate. Only 13% of Americans can perform these three tasks: Compare and contrast two essays which present alternative views, find information on a 3 factor chart such as blood pressure, age and weight, and calculate the cost per unit of measure of a commodity like packaged groceries.

If anyone is curious as to how I came to this conclusion, don't hesitate to message me privately. No need to fill up this feed on that argument alone.


August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 10:35:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Show me where an atheists has said that. I've NEVER seen an atheists make that statement, but I've seen many theists present this common strawman.

Atheists have no problem at all accepting that...
- wind
- RF signals
- IR Light
- UV Light
- Neutrinos
- Dark matter
- Black holes
- Time warps
- Atoms
- Protons
- Electrons
- Gluons
- Quarks
- etc., etc., etc.

... all exist, and yet we can't "see" any of them. The difference between these things and...
- God
- angels
- spirits
- Heaven
- unicorns
- fairies
- gremlins
- mermaid
- etc.,

...is that we have E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E for all of the former list, and not a shred of evidence for anything in the latter list. The second list is composed simply of characters in stories, inseparable by any credible means from complete fiction. They're the equivalent of The Grinch, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Wicked Witch of the West, Spiderman and Yoda.

The only difference resides in the irrational biases of the people who believe in that second list. It's about EVIDENCE, not just "visual observation". Visual observation is evidence, but you don't have that, nor do you have any shred of any form of objective evidence, whatsoever. Your theological entities are the full equivalent of the fairytale and fictional story entities.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 10:37:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 5:42:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/12/2014 9:47:04 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

You must be a troll. No atheist says that if they cannot see it that it does not exist.

Can you see it?
Is there evidence for it?
Do we see its effect?
Can we confirm any of the above?

Dark matter and Dark energy have an effect on the universe, which we can see. That is why we know it is there.

There is evidence for evolution, a lot of evidence. That is why we know it happened and is happening.

The ONLY evidence for a god is anecdotal, and anecdotal evidence is not reliable. I accept that people can make a belief off of anecdotal evidence, but NOT a knowledge claim.

In fact I have had more than one say just that to me.

Show me.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Fatihah
Posts: 7,741
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 12:28:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Response: That's because atheism is based on retardation. You already know this.

Science is based on observable, testable evidence, yet not a single person on this forum can provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another. Not one. So we know evolution is false. It's clear.

Yet someone has to play the retarded role. Enters atheists.

Now we know what's next. We sit back and watch troll atheist after another troll atheist say evolution is true and has been observed because they have a link or quote from an alleged peer-reviewed article saying it was observed, and at the same time, expose that their own link or quote is not evidence because their proof that something was peer-reviewed is because it says so. Claiming something is true because it says so is faulty logic and unscientific, so their own idiocy shows evolution is false all over again.

Dumb atheists. You can't tell me that they are not just the funniest.
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 1:16:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 12:28:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Response: That's because atheism is based on retardation. You already know this.

Science is based on observable, testable evidence, yet not a single person on this forum can provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another. Not one. So we know evolution is false. It's clear.

Yet someone has to play the retarded role. Enters atheists.

Now we know what's next. We sit back and watch troll atheist after another troll atheist say evolution is true and has been observed because they have a link or quote from an alleged peer-reviewed article saying it was observed, and at the same time, expose that their own link or quote is not evidence because their proof that something was peer-reviewed is because it says so. Claiming something is true because it says so is faulty logic and unscientific, so their own idiocy shows evolution is false all over again.

Dumb atheists. You can't tell me that they are not just the funniest.

This is as funny as fuk, coming from one of the resident religitards.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
eabey
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 1:45:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 12:28:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Response: That's because atheism is based on retardation. You already know this.

Science is based on observable, testable evidence, yet not a single person on this forum can provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another. Not one. So we know evolution is false. It's clear.

Yet someone has to play the retarded role. Enters atheists.

Now we know what's next. We sit back and watch troll atheist after another troll atheist say evolution is true and has been observed because they have a link or quote from an alleged peer-reviewed article saying it was observed, and at the same time, expose that their own link or quote is not evidence because their proof that something was peer-reviewed is because it says so. Claiming something is true because it says so is faulty logic and unscientific, so their own idiocy shows evolution is false all over again.

Dumb atheists. You can't tell me that they are not just the funniest.

You are 'SO' scientific...LOL. Blah blah Quran Challenge blah blah blah Word of Allah !
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 7:01:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this,

Atheists don't say that.

then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

They don't say that either.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 10:43:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 1:45:53 AM, eabey wrote:
At 8/13/2014 12:28:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Response: That's because atheism is based on retardation. You already know this.

Science is based on observable, testable evidence, yet not a single person on this forum can provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another. Not one. So we know evolution is false. It's clear.

Yet someone has to play the retarded role. Enters atheists.

Now we know what's next. We sit back and watch troll atheist after another troll atheist say evolution is true and has been observed because they have a link or quote from an alleged peer-reviewed article saying it was observed, and at the same time, expose that their own link or quote is not evidence because their proof that something was peer-reviewed is because it says so. Claiming something is true because it says so is faulty logic and unscientific, so their own idiocy shows evolution is false all over again.

Dumb atheists. You can't tell me that they are not just the funniest.

You are 'SO' scientific...LOL. Blah blah Quran Challenge blah blah blah Word of Allah !

...checkerboards. Don't forget the checkerboards! ;-)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 10:47:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:32:58 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
I can't see you so you don't exist.

There is no evidence for a pride of lions in your living room, so the pride of lions does not exist.

Has this ever failed you?

Is there any evidence for the rattlesnake in your pocket?
Is there any evidence for the angry hippopotamus in your car?
Is there any evidence for the Abrams tank in your driveway?
Is there any evidence for...
... fairies
... mermaids
... unicorns
... gremlins
... God?

The system of noting a lack of evidence points to lack of existence will only fail you when you refuse to use it. And the only time you refuse to use it, is in the case of God, because you don't wish to accept the reality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 1:47:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 10:47:34 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:32:58 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
I can't see you so you don't exist.

There is no evidence for a pride of lions in your living room, so the pride of lions does not exist.

Has this ever failed you?

Is there any evidence for the rattlesnake in your pocket?
Is there any evidence for the angry hippopotamus in your car?
Is there any evidence for the Abrams tank in your driveway?
Is there any evidence for...
... fairies
... mermaids
... unicorns
... gremlins
... God?

The system of noting a lack of evidence points to lack of existence will only fail you when you refuse to use it. And the only time you refuse to use it, is in the case of God, because you don't wish to accept the reality.

Can we have infer the existence or nonexistence of something using logic? The strongest evidence of God is the presence of natural intelligence exhibited throughout the universe. Intelligent beings have causal powers that are specified and complex. Given the specified-complexity present in our universe, this infers design - whether it be through a medium of natural selection or not. Do you think that given enough time, wind and erosion could've written the Rosetta Stone? Do you understand that by excluding design, you're subscribing to a philosophy that believes that blind chance has written thousands of "Rosetta stones" in nature using non-intelligent processes? Would you ever believe that the necessary resources for the components of a computer could be mashed together in a way that assembled a fully functional computer (given billions of years), while simultaneously evolving software without a programmer, then evolve a program that accurately calculates rocket-trajectory? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? You could claim that this isn't an accurate analogy, but in reality the analogy I just presented comparing the odds of this computer system arising by chance is an understatement compared the odds of intelligent life arising by blind chance. "Given enough time, a possibility becomes a certainty" is the philosophy you subscribe to. There is a possibility that I could flip a quarter on the street, have it land, and due to a sequence of unlikely events, roll all the way to china.. However, we know that logically this is an impossibly unlikely scenario. The scenario of the universe arising by chance is also impossibly unlikely. Especially when we know the odds of something like a quarter making its way to China is due to intervention through intelligent causal mechanisms.
Zylorarchy
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 2:21:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

I've never seen/heard an atheist say this.
"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 2:37:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 1:16:56 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/13/2014 12:28:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Response: That's because atheism is based on retardation. You already know this.

Science is based on observable, testable evidence, yet not a single person on this forum can provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another. Not one. So we know evolution is false. It's clear.

Yet someone has to play the retarded role. Enters atheists.

Now we know what's next. We sit back and watch troll atheist after another troll atheist say evolution is true and has been observed because they have a link or quote from an alleged peer-reviewed article saying it was observed, and at the same time, expose that their own link or quote is not evidence because their proof that something was peer-reviewed is because it says so. Claiming something is true because it says so is faulty logic and unscientific, so their own idiocy shows evolution is false all over again.

Dumb atheists. You can't tell me that they are not just the funniest.

This is as funny as fuk, coming from one of the resident religitards.

Religitards? Do you realize how close your username is to bullpoop?
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 2:43:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 12:28:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Response: That's because atheism is based on retardation. You already know this.

Science is based on observable, testable evidence, yet not a single person on this forum can provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another. Not one. So we know evolution is false. It's clear.

Yet someone has to play the retarded role. Enters atheists.

Now we know what's next. We sit back and watch troll atheist after another troll atheist say evolution is true and has been observed because they have a link or quote from an alleged peer-reviewed article saying it was observed, and at the same time, expose that their own link or quote is not evidence because their proof that something was peer-reviewed is because it says so. Claiming something is true because it says so is faulty logic and unscientific, so their own idiocy shows evolution is false all over again.

Dumb atheists. You can't tell me that they are not just the funniest.

just fyi, "evidence" is not links or scientific papers, "evidence" means the actual bones or DNA or fossils.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 2:43:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 2:21:37 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

I've never seen/heard an atheist say this.

Essentially, the majority of atheists believe that but worded in a different way. "If I can't perceive it with my senses it doesn't exist" or stated differently "anything that doesn't have objective evidence provides no reason to believe that it can exist."

By saying "If I can't see it, if doesn't exist" isn't explicitly accurate but that's the general interpretation of the beliefs of many atheists.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 3:25:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Please provide one example of a renowned atheist ever saying this quote, or any atheist for that matter.

"There is no tangible evidence for god and thus no rational reason to believe in one" does not = "I CANT SEE IT DOESNT EXIST LOL!!!@$!!!"

You may like to dumb down arguments to an imbecilic level so you can understand them better, but that in no way takes the legitimacy away from the argument.

If we're playing this game..
There is a giant godly invisible Beluga Whale named Frederick who floats between Mars and Jupiter. There is no evidence for him, but I know he's real because I have a personal relationship with him.

Oh, you don't believe me? You must just be saying that because you can't see Frederick and assume he doesn't exist.

All hail Frederick the Beluga whale.

===
Fact o' the matter is, it's impossible to disprove or prove God so long as no tangible evidence exists to suggest his existence. Thus, agnosticism is the rational answer.
===
#enoughreligiousforumfortoday, I'm becoming the secular equivalent of you fundie people and I can feel my brain cells depleting whenever I read on this forum.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 3:26:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Hmmm so what's your case then?
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 3:31:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 3:26:41 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Hmmm so what's your case then?

Hi GCL. :)
He doesn't really have one, he just made a trollish blanket statement to start a flamewar and even I fell for it <.<

I mislike people like Installgentoo who attack entire groups of people in one sentence, they're trolls. Atheists do it too, and I fell for his little trap. This whole religious section of DDO is stupid and I'm going to boycott it because everyone on here promotes mindless intolerance of other cultures and belief systems.

Anyway, I thought you said you were leaving DDO </3? You've decided to stay? If so, I'm happy you did!
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 3:42:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 3:31:55 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 8/13/2014 3:26:41 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Hmmm so what's your case then?

Hi GCL. :)
He doesn't really have one, he just made a trollish blanket statement to start a flamewar and even I fell for it <.<

I mislike people like Installgentoo who attack entire groups of people in one sentence, they're trolls. Atheists do it too, and I fell for his little trap. This whole religious section of DDO is stupid and I'm going to boycott it because everyone on here promotes mindless intolerance of other cultures and belief systems.

Anyway, I thought you said you were leaving DDO </3? You've decided to stay? If so, I'm happy you did!

I understand what you mean, but I'm still gonna wait for an answer from him. :)
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 4:17:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

You pretty much summed up the atheist mindset
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 12:43:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 1:47:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/13/2014 10:47:34 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:32:58 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:

Can we have infer the existence or nonexistence of something using logic? The strongest evidence of God is the presence of natural intelligence exhibited throughout the universe.
It is the lack of intelligence which causes one to look at the natural mechanisms throughout the universe and infer intelligence.

Intelligent beings have causal powers that are specified and complex.
Which is fully explained by evolution.

Given the specified-complexity present in our universe, this infers design - whether it be through a medium of natural selection or not.
Incorrect. There is no "design" inferred through complexity. Complexity is a rating of one's ability to understand a system, not of the system itself. And what those quick to jump to conclusions call "complexity" is often little more than repetition, through laws following varied parameters.

Do you think that given enough time, wind and erosion could've written the Rosetta Stone?
Of course not; not within any credible portion of time. The Rosetta Stone is an obvious instance of actual intelligent design, which is exactly why you use it. It is so clearly different from the structures resulting from natural mechanisms, that we can instantly spot it as having come from intelligence, while the orbits of planets, the structures of biology, and the patterns found in crystals, sand dunes and the veining patters in leaves look very much unlike intelligently fashioned structures, and follow the unique earmarks of structures fashioned through natural mechanisms.

Do you look at a bolder and insist that it demonstrates intelligent design? Clearly, even you understand the difference between a standard boulder, and one with a flattened face adorned with intelligently fashioned symbols.

Do you understand that by excluding design, you're subscribing to a philosophy that believes that blind chance has written thousands of "Rosetta stones" in nature using non-intelligent processes?
Nothing about that statement is even the least bit true, though it does serve to illustrate the ignorance involved in assuming intelligent design, when looking at the products of mechanisms. If the statement were true, we'd see thousands of Rosetta Stone; in mines, atop mountains, at the bottom of the oceans, etc. But we don't. And the reason we don't is that the Rosetta Stone is an example of intelligent design, which you instantly recognize, and thus adopt as your example. You didn't pick a log, or a boulder, or a stretch of desert sand... because those things do not display intelligent design. If you were walking through a desert past boulders, scrub, cacti, cliffs, washes, dead brush and lizards, then happened upon the Rosetta Stone, you'd instantly recognize it as uniquely different from everything else. And that's because it is an example of intelligent design, which causes it to stand out among a desertscape full of structures of natural mechanisms.

The very point you're hoping to make, is the point which defeats your argument, and shows my argument to be correct.

Would you ever believe that the necessary resources for the components of a computer could be mashed together in a way that assembled a fully functional computer (given billions of years), while simultaneously evolving software without a programmer, then evolve a program that accurately calculates rocket-trajectory?
Of course not, because such things demonstrate intelligent design and are markedly unique when compared to things which do not suggest intelligent design, such as planetary orbits, chemical interactions, and crystallization patterns. You still don't seem to understand that you use examples which are specific to intelligent design, because, they are so obviously different from things which do not.

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
Not just ridiculous, but also refutational to the very argument you're attempting to present.

You could claim that this isn't an accurate analogy, but in reality the analogy I just presented comparing the odds of this computer system arising by chance is an understatement compared the odds of intelligent life arising by blind chance.
Nothing, Ben... NOTHING about natural mechanisms are "blind chance". I don't know why you can't seem to understand that. Would you ever expect to mix vinegar and sulfur and end up with a glass of milk? You could repeat that experiment billions of times and you'll always get the same thing. You'll never get a glass of milk. And that's because natural mechanisms adhere strictly to physical properties. They NEVER deviate from them. There is more chance in intelligence than there is in natural mechanisms. Have you ever stopped thinking about a problem and suddenly the answer occurred to you? That was chance. But until you can mix blood and dirt and come up with maple syrup, there is no valid claim or understanding that natural mechanisms are in any way, blind chance or random.

"Given enough time, a possibility becomes a certainty" is the philosophy you subscribe to.
Do yourself a favor and don't waste time trying to tell ME, what I subscribe to. If you want to know, I'LL tell YOU.

This is what I subscribe to and I suggest you take a moment to actually understand it, rather than just dismissing it because it doesn't agree with your "magic" explanation for everything you don't understand. I subscribe to, "When all possible outcomes are highly unlikely, a highly unlikely outcome becomes a certainty."

I fear I'll have to explain that to you, so here goes; no matter what the outcome of big-bang, we would end up with a universe full of wonder. It might have no matter/energy, it might have laws inverse to gravity, but it would be unique, and it would be wondrous. And because it would be unique and wondrous, there would be those asking how it could be possible. Take someone with a fairy simplistic cognitive process, and put them in 10^120th different universes, and in each one, they would be filled with wonder, and amazement that such a universe could have arisen through natural mechanisms, even though each of them did. And when placed in this universe, where a life form such as they arose, they would be no less filled with such wonder. Even the complete absence of anything could become a phenomenon of shear wonder. How can it be that absolutely nothing exists? Of course, one must remove themselves from the scenario even to imagine it. But we could (and likely would) be no less filled with amazement, questions, awe, and bewilderment.

There is a possibility that I could flip a quarter on the street, have it land, and due to a sequence of unlikely events, roll all the way to china.. However, we know that logically this is an impossibly unlikely scenario. The scenario of the universe arising by chance is also impossibly unlikely.
Because you say so? Can matter co-exist with other matter and not interact? Can matter and energy co-exist and not interact? Can that interaction be random, and inherently different between one interaction and the next, or are those interactions - which are devoid of intelligent direction - destined always to follow the nature of the properties of the physics involved?

Especially when we know the odds of something like a quarter making its way to China is due to intervention through intelligent causal mechanisms.
Anyone can make up anything which we know to be incredibly unlikely. But you're forgetting that we have far more likely scenarios for the quarter. What is your likely scenario for a universe of matter/energy and forces, which doesn't result in some rather amazing patterns, and outcomes?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 9:29:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 10:35:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Show me where an atheists has said that. I've NEVER seen an atheists make that statement, but I've seen many theists present this common strawman.

Atheists have no problem at all accepting that...

- Time warps

....exist, and yet we can't "see" any of them. The difference between these things and...

- God

...is that we have E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E for all of the former list, and not a shred of evidence for anything in the latter list.

What is the evidence for Time warps?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 9:46:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 9:29:35 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/12/2014 10:35:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:10:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Interesting how atheists will say this, then say they evolved from a virus to a highly-evolved primate.

Show me where an atheists has said that. I've NEVER seen an atheists make that statement, but I've seen many theists present this common strawman.

Atheists have no problem at all accepting that...

- Time warps

....exist, and yet we can't "see" any of them. The difference between these things and...

- God

...is that we have E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E for all of the former list, and not a shred of evidence for anything in the latter list.

What is the evidence for Time warps?

General relativity.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten