A few questions come to mind....

[mightymouse72]

There is a lot of time spent on this board asking us christians to prove there is God who created us and everything.
There is some good debate occasionally but most of the time it usually reverts back to the same arguement: "there is no evidence of God, creation or the Bible being true".  

True, it takes extraordinary faith to totally turn your life over to God and accept His Word as being infallible.  

But, I'll get to my point.  Since we are asked constantly to provide evidence there is God, I will turn that question around and ask: Can anyone provide evidence there isn't a God??  Is there any hard evidence that can prove that God doesn't exist??  I kind of already know how this question will be answered but I'm curious none the less.


Also, below I posed these questions to CD82 in a PM a few days ago.  We never tackled those concerns of mine so I thought I would start a thread about them.  Anyone care to discuss??
I'm probably opening a smorgasbord of hate-filled posts, but what else is new.  



okay, i have some questions.  how come none of these scientists can explain how the body and mind become so complex??  when i took my PT course, just the small amount of training i received on the human body would be enough to make me a believer in God.  it is simply remarkable how the body functions, processes, repairs and adapts.  that did not just happen from a pile of goo.  those things cannot be explained.  science and medicine might be able to understand the body but if they can explain how it happened by evolution and without God, then i'd love to hear it.  and, if they can, why isn't science making humans??  

why can't science explain human emotion??  
even the most hateful atheist has Godly attributes and i can prove it.  
do you feel compassion for people in hurt or distress??  
do you have love for your wife/GF, mother and father, siblings, or friends??  enough to die for them??
do you give to some type of charity or organization that helps something or someone??
do you wish freedom, safety and happiness for everyone in the world??  
do you respect your elders, teach a young child how to do something??
do you watch nature, play with your cat or dog??

i could probably go on but you understand.  my guess would be that you answered yes to most if not all of those.  aside from the most evil people in the world, i would say most of the people in the world have all those things.
those are the gifts that God has given to mankind.  those did NOT come from animals.  there is no way.  

[beatmaster]

A god is a being created by humans and given supernatural powers or attributes such as immortality, omniscience, telekinesis, and invisibility. These creations serve many purposes, such as imaginary protection from enemies or explanations for the origin of such things as good and evil, fire and wind, or life and death.

Gods are often the central figures around which religions are built. It is often claimed that religion began in fear and superstition. The same might be said for gods.

Some religions maintain that there is just one God and that all the gods of all religions except theirs were created by human beings. Yet, everyone who believes in a god of some sort believes their god is real.

Since gods are supernatural, they exist outside the bounds and laws of space and time. They can possess any of an infinite array of magical powers. Hence, there is no way to prove or disprove their reality. One might say: If gods exist, anything goes!

[columbusdude82]

There is a lot of time spent on this board asking us christians to prove there is God who created us and everything.
There is some good debate occasionally but most of the time it usually reverts back to the same arguement: "there is no evidence of God, creation or the Bible being true". 

True, it takes extraordinary faith to totally turn your life over to God and accept His Word as being infallible.

Faith is belief without evidence. Thus, it demands the suspension of reason. Faith simply means that you refrain from applying to one particular god and religion, the same skepticism that you apply to all other gods and religions.

I'd rather think hard and evaluate evidence. 

But, I'll get to my point.  Since we are asked constantly to provide evidence there is God, I will turn that question around and ask: Can anyone provide evidence there isn't a God??  Is there any hard evidence that can prove that God doesn't exist??  I kind of already know how this question will be answered but I'm curious none the less.

The burden of proof is always on those who claim something exists. I am making no such claims. You are.

Can you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Zeus? Adonis? Jupiter? Minerva? Santa?

Can you prove Mohammad didn't fly on his horse Al Boraq from Mecca to Jerusalem, and then from there on to Heaven?

If you can't disprove these, who do you disbelieve them?

Also, below I posed these questions to CD82 in a PM a few days ago.  We never tackled those concerns of mine so I thought I would start a thread about them.  Anyone care to discuss??
I'm probably opening a smorgasbord of hate-filled posts, but what else is new. 

You won't get any hate from me!

okay, i have some questions.  how come none of these scientists can explain how the body and mind become so complex??

They can. If only you'd taken the trouble to learn just a little about modern biology, psychology, and neuro-science, among other fields. Evolution is a very powerful theory that provides explanations to many questions along these lines. What it cannot explain entirely, it certainly goes a long way.

when i took my PT course, just the small amount of training i received on the human body would be enough to make me a believer in God.

That is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that, if you were impressed with the workings of the human body, therefore the Christian god exists. For one thing, how do you know it wasn't the Muslim god, or the Mormon god? Or any of the other gods that at one time or another, men thought were the creators?

it is simply remarkable how the body functions, processes, repairs and adapts.  that did not just happen from a pile of goo.

Of course it didn't. But you'd know that already if you'd take the time to learn some science. Evolution is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "happening from a pile of goo."

those things cannot be explained.  science and medicine might be able to understand the body but if they can explain how it happened by evolution

Yes they can, and they have. Just because you choose to keep yourself misinformed doesn't mean science is going to "unlearn" what it has accomplished!

if they can, why isn't science making humans?? 

You mean, like, in vitro fertilization? or something like that? I don't get this point.

why can't science explain human emotion??

Science can tell us how the brain works. Neuro-science and brain imaging study particular parts of the brain as they are stimulated by particular emotions. Evolutionary psychology explains a good deal about the emotions we feel.

That is not to reduce our emotional and artistic experience to points on a graph, but understanding them only makes them more special, not less so. 

even the most hateful atheist has Godly attributes and i can prove it. 

Dude, you are almost as much of an atheist as I am. An atheist is, by definition, someone who doesn't think gods exist. Over the millenia, men have believed in many thousands of gods. Let's say for a moment there's just a thousand of them. (There were undoubtedly a lot more.) You believe in only one, I believe in none.

So that means you believe in 0.001% of the gods, and I believe in 0.000%. Slight difference.

As Richard Dawkins said, "We are ALL atheists with respect to most of the gods that mankind has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

do you feel compassion for people in hurt or distress?? 

Yes.

do you have love for your wife/GF, mother and father, siblings, or friends??  enough to die for them??

Yes.

do you give to some type of charity or organization that helps something or someone??

Yes.

do you wish freedom, safety and happiness for everyone in the world?? 

Yes.

do you respect your elders, teach a young child how to do something??

Yes.

do you watch nature, play with your cat or dog??

Yes, but I don't have any pets.

i could probably go on but you understand. 

No, not quite.

my guess would be that you answered yes to most if not all of those.  aside from the most evil people in the world, i would say most of the people in the world have all those things.

Yes. Most people in the world across cultures display these altruistic features. And evolution explains perfectly well how they came about in our ancestors.

those are the gifts that God has given to mankind.

Which god? The Christian god? Then why do Muslims answer yes to these questions too? Again, throwing your god in there is a complete non sequitur.

those did NOT come from animals.  there is no way.   [/i]

I hate to break it to you, but we ARE animals. We are mammals!

[Necrosis]

i was going to take your post apart like columbus dude did but he did a good job at it.

your arguments stem from a lack of knowledge and the need for more. because you dont understand something doesnt mean it hasnt been explained. i know quite a bit about neuro-science and there are neural correlates to certain emotional states via imaging studies, and disease studies, or organ removal. thus we know for example that the amygdala is involved in the fear response, more specifically the fear recongnition via occular observation. the brain grows new dendrites via BDNF among other nerve trophic factors, all without the help of god. you should read some science.

[beatmaster]

good post columbusdude82 

[columbusdude82]

Thanks, usmokepole and beatmaster

[MCWAY]

Faith is belief without evidence. Thus, it demands the suspension of reason. Faith simply means that you refrain from applying to one particular god and religion, the same skepticism that you apply to all other gods and religions.

Incorrect!!! Faith is not belief without evidence. Christians have faith in God, based on what He has done in the past, according to Scripture. What faith entails is that the believer will trust in God, whether there is "evidence" or not.

The burden of proof is always on those who claim something exists. I am making no such claims. You are.

Can you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Zeus? Adonis? Jupiter? Minerva? Santa?

Can you prove Mohammad didn't fly on his horse Al Boraq from Mecca to Jerusalem, and then from there on to Heaven?

If you can't disprove these, who do you disbelieve them?

The "burden of proof" depends on the audience. Non-believers always put the burden of proof on believers; believers do the same to non-believers. You believe that life has no God at its source, and that a series of random, unmanipulated events begat life on this planet. Can you produce some evidence of such happening?

They can. If only you'd taken the trouble to learn just a little about modern biology, psychology, and neuro-science, among other fields. Evolution is a very powerful theory that provides explanations to many questions along these lines. What it cannot explain entirely, it certainly goes a long way.

What it doesn't explain is origin. Nor does it explain how the "lower" creatures become "higher" ones, with no deliberate manipulation. What we've learned from biology (some time ago) is that life comes from life.

That is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that, if you were impressed with the workings of the human body, therefore the Christian god exists. For one thing, how do you know it wasn't the Muslim god, or the Mormon god? Or any of the other gods that at one time or another, men thought were the creators?

Nor does it follow that if, men believed in multiple gods, that all of them were incorrect and that man was not created at all.

Of course it didn't. But you'd know that already if you'd take the time to learn some science. Evolution is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "happening from a pile of goo."

I beg to differ. At its core, evolution requires the origin of life WITHOUT supernatural guidance. And that such started by one random accident after another, resulting in lifeforms with increased complexity. There's a reason that evolution appeals to atheists: It fits their philosophical bend towards a godless existence.

Yes they can, and they have. Just because you choose to keep yourself misinformed doesn't mean science is going to "unlearn" what it has accomplished!

The only thing that "science" has accomplished is taking God's materials and using His natural and physical laws and resources to address questions to which He already knows the answers. A scientific discovery is simply finding something that was already there.

You mean, like, in vitro fertilization? or something like that? I don't get this point.

I do. Science isn't making any human beings. The materals that make humans are ALREADY in existence, originally created by God. Man has learned (at certain levels) how to manipulate those materials. Sperm and egg come ready-made and God's laws of nature take over from there.

Science can tell us how the brain works. Neuro-science and brain imaging study particular parts of the brain as they are stimulated by particular emotions. Evolutionary psychology explains a good deal about the emotions we feel.

That is not to reduce our emotional and artistic experience to points on a graph, but understanding them only makes them more special, not less so. 

Understanding them can also lead to the acknowledgement that such abilities were given to man by his Creator, thus making them special.

Dude, you are almost as much of an atheist as I am. An atheist is, by definition, someone who doesn't think gods exist. Over the millenia, men have believed in many thousands of gods. Let's say for a moment there's just a thousand of them. (There were undoubtedly a lot more.) You believe in only one, I believe in none.

So that means you believe in 0.001% of the gods, and I believe in 0.000%. Slight difference.

As Richard Dawkins said, "We are ALL atheists with respect to most of the gods that mankind has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

If you want to go that route, I can say that you are just as much a believer in "gods" as I or MightyMouse, or Richard Dawkins, for that matter. A god, by definition, can be a powerful ruler, a person or thing of supreme value, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality, or something requiring human worship.

Atheism/humanism, in short form, is simply man worshipping himself. Doing such makes an atheist no different than a Christian, in that respect. Either you believe that there is a being higher than man or you don't. If you don't, than you are assigning man as the arbitrator or right and wrong, good and evil, etc. (i.e. the highest being in the universe). That, for all practical purposes, is a god, which means you believe in "0.001% of the gods" as well.

[MCWAY]

A god is a being created by humans and given supernatural powers or attributes such as immortality, omniscience, telekinesis, and invisibility. These creations serve many purposes, such as imaginary protection from enemies or explanations for the origin of such things as good and evil, fire and wind, or life and death.

Gods are often the central figures around which religions are built. It is often claimed that religion began in fear and superstition. The same might be said for gods.

Some religions maintain that there is just one God and that all the gods of all religions except theirs were created by human beings. Yet, everyone who believes in a god of some sort believes their god is real.

Since gods are supernatural, they exist outside the bounds and laws of space and time. They can possess any of an infinite array of magical powers. Hence, there is no way to prove or disprove their reality. One might say: If gods exist, anything goes!

By the definition I listed earlier (from Webster's Dictionary), gods aren't exclusively supernatural. As for the claim of proving and disproving reality, the only way to do that would be indirect observation. That is, observing the works of a supernatural being, manifested in the natural world.

Science is simply the observation of natural phenomena. As mortal men, we can only observe with our senses (seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling. The tools of scientific research usually amplify those senses for greater and more detailed observation.

[loco]

Great posts, MCWAY!

[Butterbean]

Great posts, MCWAY!

ditto

[Necrosis]

oh brother here we go again.

[columbusdude82]

MCWAY's debate strategy is what I call the "Dinesh D'Souza": throw so much dust in the air that people are left asking "what's the question again?"

Here goes.

Incorrect!!! Faith is not belief without evidence. Christians have faith in God, based on what He has done in the past, according to Scripture. What faith entails is that the believer will trust in God, whether there is "evidence" or not.

So you trust in God "whether or not there is evidence" yet you deny that faith is belief without evidence. Oh dear...

You believe the claims of one particular group of scriptures, but have no evidence for them whatsoever. (If such evidence existed, it would be "knowledge," not "faith", and it would be taught in history classes.)

Muslims trust in Allah too, based on what he has done in the past.

Trusting imaginary friends is no basis on which to establish truth claims.

The "burden of proof" depends on the audience. Non-believers always put the burden of proof on believers; believers do the same to non-believers.

False. The burden of proving that something exists lies on those who claim that it exists. If you were to claim that there is a blue 2-ton tomato growing in your garden, the burden of proof is on you. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

You believe that life has no God at its source,

Well, of course! Given that I don't believe in any gods whatsoever...
 

and that a series of random, unmanipulated events begat life on this planet. Can you produce some evidence of such happening?

Here we go again with the "evidence for evolution" thing from the other thread. The scientific journal is filled with evidence. I provided links to a couple journal articles in that thread, by way of illustration. Have you looked them up?

What it doesn't explain is origin.

Well DUUUUHHHHH, evolution is about "evolution of life" not "origin of life." But scientists are also doing work in the latter area.

Nor does it explain how the "lower" creatures become "higher" ones, with no deliberate manipulation.

Yes it does. Just because you choose to keep yourself misinformed doesn't mean science will "unlearn" what it has accomplished!

Nor does it follow that if, men believed in multiple gods, that all of them were incorrect and that man was not created at all.

Correct. But I see no more evidence for one than any of the others. It follows that they are all equally likely. Thus, assuming for the sake of argument there are a thousand gods, each has a 0.001% of existence.

I beg to differ. At its core, evolution requires the origin of life WITHOUT supernatural guidance. And that such started by one random accident after another, resulting in lifeforms with increased complexity. There's a reason that evolution appeals to atheists: It fits their philosophical bend towards a godless existence.

No. It appeals to anyone who cares to learn the truth. I have friends who are biology grad students doing research in evolution. They are also devout Christians. They tell me evolution strengthens their faiths.

Faith in God and knowledge of evolution have been reconciled by many who wanted both. Atheists don't need evolution to not believe in gods. They have many other reasons.

The only thing that "science" has accomplished is taking God's materials and using His natural and physical laws and resources to address questions to which He already knows the answers.

Again, a non sequitur. A muslim could say the same thing and put "Allah" where you say "God" and it would be just as much of a non sequitur.

 

A scientific discovery is simply finding something that was already there.

You don't say??? Good job, Captain Obvious. You looked up "discover" in the dictionary? Dis/Cover = Remove Cover!

I do. Science isn't making any human beings. The materals that make humans are ALREADY in existence, originally created by God. Man has learned (at certain levels) how to manipulate those materials. Sperm and egg come ready-made and God's laws of nature take over from there.

Again, how do you know it was God and not Allah or Zeus? Another non sequitur. You are claiming that your particular god did something. A follower of another religion can claim the same, and neither of you has any evidence. Again, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Understanding them can also lead to the acknowledgement that such abilities were given to man by his Creator, thus making them special.

Again, a non sequitur, no more than understanding diabetes means that the it was given by a creator.

If you want to go that route, I can say that you are just as much a believer in "gods" as I or MightyMouse, or Richard Dawkins, for that matter.

Well, OK, I am fine with being a 0.000% believer Are you fine with being a 0.001% believer?

A god, by definition, can be a powerful ruler, a person or thing of supreme value, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality, or something requiring human worship.

I thought "by definition" gods are supernatural. Isn't that what the religious folks imply when you say your gods exist "outside space and time" and aren't subject to our requirements of evidence? Is your god supernatural?

Atheism/humanism, in short form, is simply man worshipping himself.

Oh brother If atheism is a form of worship, then health is a form of disease. Being an atheist is merely not believing in any gods, and by implication, not worshipping any. Since your mind is trained into subservience to imaginary friends, you are unable to see how anyone can not worship something.


 

Doing such makes an atheist no different than a Christian, in that respect.

False

Either you believe that there is a being higher than man or you don't.

No shit!

If you don't, than you are assigning man as the arbitrator or right and wrong, good and evil, etc. (i.e. the highest being in the universe).

Highest being in the universe? How do you know that? Have you led an exhaustive intergallactic mission and found absolutely no signs of any other beings?

That, for all practical purposes, is a god, which means you believe in "0.001% of the gods" as well.

Again, you BS! I'm an atheist, MCWAY. I do not believe any gods exist. You can BS all you like but you can't sway me from 0.000% to 0.001%

In the future, please take some time to learn about something (e.g., science, atheism, ...) before you start rambling on and on about it.

Thank you

[columbusdude82]

Great posts, MCWAY!

Only if you like sand in your eyes

[MCWAY]

MCWAY's debate strategy is what I call the "Dinesh D'Souza": throw so much dust in the air that people are left asking "what's the question again?"

Here goes.

So you trust in God "whether or not there is evidence" yet you deny that faith is belief without evidence. Oh dear...

"Oh Dear..." is right, when it comes to your conclusion of what faith is. There's a reason why, for example, Abraham is used as a reference of faith for Christian. He was promised that, through his wife Sarah, he would have a son and through that son, Abe's seed would become a great nation. If my memory serves me correctly, it was about 25 years between the time God made that promise and the time Isaac was actually born.

Then, of course, there's the old Mt. Moriah inicident. Abe is tested by being told to sacrifice Isaac, the very son God promised him. As he'd heading up the mountain, Abe tells his servants to wait and that he and Isaac would return to them. Abe counted on God to fulfill His promise, even though he had no idea how God would do it. His faith was based on the evidence that God gave him Isaac, in the first place (even though he and an already-barren Sarah were both long past child-bearing age).

You believe the claims of one particular group of scriptures, but have no evidence for them whatsoever. (If such evidence existed, it would be "knowledge," not "faith", and it would be taught in history classes.)

You want this one, Loco, or should I take it? 

I'll start with one of several examples of how Scriptures has contained historical accounts that Biblical skeptics believed to be false (due to their lack of belief and that that the Bible was the lone source of such accounts)....that is, until archaeological evidence confirmed the Biblical accounts to be accurate. Some of those skeptics became believers, as a result.

Ever heard of Belshazzar? He was a co-regent king with his biological father, Nabonidus, in Babylon. Skeptics claimed that Belshazzar never existed (and that whoever mentioned him in the book of Daniel, made the character up), until cuneiform evidence of his existence was found in the mid 19th century. Next, the skeptics said that he wasn't "king". However, that same archaeological evidence shows his father assiging the kingdom to Belshazzar, while he left to pursue other things.

That just happens to correspond with Daniel 5, in which Daniel is offered the position of third highest ruler in the kingdom, if he can solve a certain handwriting-on-the-wall mystery. For 100 points, why is it that Daniel can only be third-highest ruler, instead of second-highest?

Muslims trust in Allah too, based on what he has done in the past.

Trusting imaginary friends is no basis on which to establish truth claims.

What was that you were saying about "burden of proof"?

False. The burden of proving that something exists lies on those who claim that it exists. If you were to claim that there is a blue 2-ton tomato growing in your garden, the burden of proof is on you. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.


Well, of course! Given that I don't believe in any gods whatsoever...

Then, the burden of proof would be yours (depending on the audience) that no gods exist and that life occured without them.

Here we go again with the "evidence for evolution" thing from the other thread. The scientific journal is filled with evidence. I provided links to a couple journal articles in that thread, by way of illustration. Have you looked them up?

Well DUUUUHHHHH, evolution is about "evolution of life" not "origin of life." But scientists are also doing work in the latter area.

In other words, you are exercising your faith that life just somehow got here (with no God and no guidance). Furthermore, why do scientists need to do work in that area, as you put it? As evolutionists past have stated, as some point, the question becomes "How did life began?" And, as I've posted before, the reason many evolutionists (past and present) believed and still believe in evolution (primarily, one of its specific tenets of spontaneous generation) is because, without it, they must concede to a supernatural source of origin, which they DO NOT want to do.

Yes it does. Just because you choose to keep yourself misinformed doesn't mean science will "unlearn" what it has accomplished!

What's the accomplishment? Where is the demonstration that, left unmolested and unaltered, a lizard, for example, will "evolve" into a bird, if put in the alleged environment that caused such to happen?

No. It appeals to anyone who cares to learn the truth. I have friends who are biology grad students doing research in evolution. They are also devout Christians. They tell me evolution strengthens their faiths.

I have friends who are biology students and have degrees in other scientific fields. They believe in Creation. What's your point?

Faith in God and knowledge of evolution have been reconciled by many who wanted both. Atheists don't need evolution to not believe in gods. They have many other reasons.

Remember I speficially stated that evolution appeals to atheists, because it's a godless explanation for life on this planet.

You don't say??? Good job, Captain Obvious. You looked up "discover" in the dictionary? Dis/Cover = Remove Cover!

Now, it's your turn, genius. How did those lovely items get there in the first place?

Again, how do you know it was God and not Allah or Zeus? Another non sequitur. You are claiming that your particular god did something. A follower of another religion can claim the same, and neither of you has any evidence. Again, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

As well, a follower of naturalism (i.e. YOU) could claim that such mysteriously appear with no guidance (though scientists are still trying to "figure it out", of course). So, it appears that you're in the same boat.

Well, OK, I am fine with being a 0.000% believer Are you fine with being a 0.001% believer?

But, you aren't a 0.0000% believer. Your deity just happens to be......man.

I thought "by definition" gods are supernatural. Isn't that what the religious folks imply when you say your gods exist "outside space and time" and aren't subject to our requirements of evidence? Is your god supernatural?

I listed some of the definitions, earlier, in case you forgot. That list was not exhaustive.

Oh brother If atheism is a form of worship, then health is a form of disease. Being an atheist is merely not believing in any gods, and by implication, not worshipping any. Since your mind is trained into subservience to imaginary friends, you are unable to see how anyone can not worship something.

Your mind is trained into believe that worshipping something/someone is limited to bowing before an altar an invoking a formal or ritualistic prayer. It is not.

False

No shit!

Highest being in the universe? How do you know that? Have you led an exhaustive intergallactic mission and found absolutely no signs of any other beings?

I never claimed that man was the highest being in the universe. What I said was, if you do not believe that there is a being higher than man, then (by default) you are assigning man as the highest being in the universe, effectively placing man (with his limited abilities) in the position of deity.

Again, you BS! I'm an atheist, MCWAY. I do not believe any gods exist. You can BS all you like but you can't sway me from 0.000% to 0.001%

You do not believe in the supernatural. The god you worship, however, is not a supernatural one. People have worshipped gods made of wood, stone, and metal, none of which are supernatural.

In the future, please take some time to learn about something (e.g., science, atheism, ...) before you start rambling on and on about it.

Thank you

Perhaps, you should take your own advice, especially when it comes to faith!!!!

You're welcome!!!!

[columbusdude82]

MCWAY, you are a dishonest debater. You repeat the same points over and over after you have been debunked, and have no interest in listening to anyone but yourself.

I thought about replying to this last post, but I would just end up copying/pasting my previous post, since it obviously didn't filter through for you.

I am sorry you have been deprived of a good scientific education, or choose to keep yourself misinformed.

You're most welcome

CD82

[MCWAY]

MCWAY, you are a dishonest debater. You repeat the same points over and over after you have been debunked, and have no interest in listening to anyone but yourself.

And this debunking occured where?

And exactly about what was I dishonest? Some specifics would be nice!!!

I thought about replying to this last post, but I would just end up copying/pasting my previous post, since it obviously didn't filter through for you.

I am sorry you have been deprived of a good scientific education, or choose to keep yourself misinformed.

You're most welcome

CD82

Making condescending remarks and a pitiful attempts at a brush-off does not a good debator make, in your case. If you think I've been dishonest, show some specific examples of my alleged lies and back them up.

But, resorting to this is just plain feeble.

[columbusdude82]

Re-read my first debunking and be debunked again

I love how you continue with the "atheism is a religion" mantra and "you worship man" BS after I debunked it.

You have no interest in debating, only in hearing yourself repeat the same stuff over and over.

I certainly don't mean to "brush you off," but you are not interested in hearing anything except your unreasoned rants against atheism and science.

[columbusdude82]

Let's pick your most idiotic claim: that atheists worship a god also.

I made a new thread for that.

Everyone feel free to take it up there.

As for this thread, I'm waiting for Mightymouse to return. It is his thread after all

[MCWAY]

Re-read my first debunking and be debunked again

That would require actually being debunked a first time  .

I love how you continue with the "atheism is a religion" mantra and "you worship man" BS after I debunked it.

You have no interest in debating, only in hearing yourself repeat the same stuff over and over.

I certainly don't mean to "brush you off," but you are not interested in hearing anything except your unreasoned rants against atheism and science.

I've heard what you have to say and am addressing it, giving my point of views. That's called a discussion, in case you missed it. Furthermore, my disagreeing with you in certain area doesn't make my arguments "unreasoned rants", against science and atheism.

You stated that you don't believe in any gods, which is propped by your assumption that gods are strictly supernatural. If by definition, a god is/can be " can be a powerful ruler, a person or thing of supreme value, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality, or something requiring human worship., then it follows that you can worship a god WITHOUT that god being a supernatural entity. People do that still today, on a regular basis.

I'll be at your other thread, in a bit.

[MMC78]

MCWAY, you are a dishonest debater. You repeat the same points over and over after you have been debunked, and have no interest in listening to anyone but yourself.

I thought about replying to this last post, but I would just end up copying/pasting my previous post, since it obviously didn't filter through for you.

I am sorry you have been deprived of a good scientific education, or choose to keep yourself misinformed.

I agree. 

MCWAY your posts are filled with strawman arguments, and false dilemmas.  Somewhere there is an intelligent being though, though that intelligence is being shamefully wasted.

I'll defend one point in the above discussion, namely that atheism is a religion.  What I find most despicable about your posts is the equating of the supernatural murderous primitive judeo-christian god with the god of Einstein and Spinoza.

The christian god is a fictitious supernatural fairy tale, (and not a very good one at that).  The athiest 'god' is the sum of the laws of nature (both known and unknown).  Atheism posits neither a personal nor a supernatural being.  There is no 'god' of athiesm, unless by god you mean reality. 

Long ago people believed in a thing called animism.  Animism stated that the coming of the tides, the blossoming of every flower, the turning of the seasons was influenced directly by the hand of god.  A particular barbaric consequence is the practice of human sacrifice to hasten the coming of rain.  As we learned more and more about the nature of reality and the science underlying these processes, we came to realize that there were very specific natural forces that controlled these processes.  The moon causes the tide, the tilt of the earth influences the seasons, etc.

At this point in history, science is completely devoid of the need of a god.  When we cannot explain a natural process we do not throw our hands up and attribute the process to god.  Instead we pursue a nobler path, namely one of wonder and discovery.  This is a fundamentally different manner of thinking about the world, and is coincidentally the manner of thinking that led to the technology that allows us to communicate in this manner.

Equating science with religion insults both parties.

[MCWAY]

I agree. 

MCWAY your posts are filled with strawman arguments, and false dilemmas.  Somewhere there is an intelligent being though, though that intelligence is being shamefully wasted.

I'll defend one point in the above discussion, namely that atheism is a religion.  What I find most despicable about your posts is the equating of the supernatural murderous primitive judeo-christian god with the god of Einstein and Spinoza.

The christian god is a fictitious supernatural fairy tale, (and not a very good one at that).  The athiest 'god' is the sum of the laws of nature (both known and unknown).  Atheism posits neither a personal nor a supernatural being.  There is no 'god' of athiesm, unless by god you mean reality. 

But, it does assign man as the highest being in the universe, which fits some of the defintions of a "god" I listed earlier (a powerful ruler, a person or thing of supreme value, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality, or something requiring human worship). Like Columbusdude, you are assuming that the term is limited to something supernatural.

Long ago people believed in a thing called animism.  Animism stated that the coming of the tides, the blossoming of every flower, the turning of the seasons was influenced directly by the hand of god.  A particular barbaric consequence is the practice of human sacrifice to hasten the coming of rain.  As we learned more and more about the nature of reality and the science underlying these processes, we came to realize that there were very specific natural forces that controlled these processes.  The moon causes the tide, the tilt of the earth influences the seasons, etc.

At this point in history, science is completely devoid of the need of a god.  When we cannot explain a natural process we do not throw our hands up and attribute the process to god.  Instead we pursue a nobler path, namely one of wonder and discovery.  This is a fundamentally different manner of thinking about the world, and is coincidentally the manner of thinking that led to the technology that allows us to communicate in this manner.

Equating science with religion insults both parties.

Contrary to your claim, at no point does any believer "throw up our hands and attribute the process to God", when lacking a natural explanation. That is a strawman on YOUR part, MMC78. On the contrary, when the process is learned, the complexity inherent therein points the believer to the power and majesty of God.

Wonder and discovery does NOT mandate nor neccesitate the absence of God. This is another strawman, if you will, that atheists and evolutionists love to use: That a belief in Creation will somehow stifle the desire for exploration and scientific advancement.

[MMC78]

But, it does assign man as the highest being in the universe, which fits some of the defintions of a "god" I listed earlier (a powerful ruler, a person or thing of supreme value, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality, or something requiring human worship). Like Columbusdude, you are assuming that the term is limited to something supernatural.

You are stretching definitions to prove a tenuous point.  If you equate the scientific process with idol worship then let's discontinue this thread of discussion.

Contrary to your claim, at no point does any believer "throw up our hands and attribute the process to God", when lacking a natural explanation. That is a strawman on YOUR part, MMC78. On the contrary, when the process is learned, the complexity inherent therein points the believer to the power and majesty of God.

Admiring the wonder and majesty of God after failing to achieve a natural explanation of something is akin to throwing up your hands in the air.  Unless you continue the effort to understand things in terms of a natural process then you are giving up on the intellectual pursuit. 

Wonder and discovery does NOT mandate nor neccesitate the absence of God. This is another strawman, if you will, that atheists and evolutionists love to use: That a belief in Creation will somehow stifle the desire for exploration and scientific advancement.

I can't agree with that statement considering how at odds science and religion has been with each other since the enlightenment.

[/quote]

[Necrosis]

mcway for starters you dont know what a strawman is, science has nothing to do with god. god is supernatural, hence outside of science by your definition.

your god is one of the gaps, you say he is responsible for the creation of man because we do not have that information yet. there have been gods for all the gaps, like zeus, gods of fire, water, earth all gone with natural explanations in hand.

your soul is not to be found within a human being, all his emotions have neural correlates.


where is your god? there is no evidence for him, and our naturalistic explanations serve us well. nothing in our pursuit of knowledge has overturned a god, what it has done is lessened the number of gods. that trend will continue if im a betting man.

[mightymouse72]

sorry guys, i realize i started this thread and i haven't responded.  busy life.

thanks mcway for fighting for the truth. 
i wish i had the time to make thought out replies.  but anyway, you anti-god people made your responses like i thought.  shallow. 
i still did not read any hard evidence against the existence of God from anyone.  just the arguement of faith.  so, why should i believe you??  ya'll aren't very convincing.   
i've lived without God in my life and, now, with God in my life.  and i'm telling you, i'm much more happy, content and fulfilled.  and, by the statemet; "with God in my life" i mean praying, reading His Word, having faith in tough times and trusting Him.  some people think that all they have to do is believe in God and He will bless you.  wrong. 

anyway, since i've pretty much lived on both sides of the fence, why should be swayed to NOT believe in God??  there is no life on that side of the fence.  people, and much worse kids, are being taught they descend from animals, monkies, goo are whatever you guys believe and society tries to figure out why they act like animals.  they wonder what life is about and a lot of people believe life is pointless.  what else would can they believe when "scientists" tell them their cousins are apes. 

[columbusdude82]

sorry guys, i realize i started this thread and i haven't responded.  busy life.

thanks mcway for fighting for the truth. 
i wish i had the time to make thought out replies.  but anyway, you anti-ALLAH people made your responses like i thought.  shallow. 
i still did not read any hard evidence against the existence of ALLAH from anyone.  just the arguement of faith.  so, why should i believe you??  ya'll aren't very convincing.   
i've lived without ALLAH in my life and, now, with ALLAH in my life.  and i'm telling you, i'm much more happy, content and fulfilled.  and, by the statemet; "with ALLAH in my life" i mean praying, reading His Word, having faith in tough times and trusting Him.  some people think that all they have to do is believe in ALLAH and He will bless you.  wrong. 

anyway, since i've pretty much lived on both sides of the fence, why should be swayed to NOT believe in ALLAH??  there is no life on that side of the fence.  people, and much worse kids, are being taught they descend from animals, monkies, goo are whatever you guys believe and society tries to figure out why they act like animals.  they wonder what life is about and a lot of people believe life is pointless.  what else would can they believe when "scientists" tell them their cousins are apes. 

Mightymouse, all the points you raise, I have already answered in this thread, other threads, and in our private PM conversations. However, you seem to be immune to reason, or willfully ignore my points.

Perhaps a change of perspective will help you. The only change I made to your post is to replace the name of the god you believe in, with that of another that you do not believe in. So imagine a Muslim had written your post.

Re-read and see how many fallacies, non sequiturs, and faulty arguments you can identify. I counted several.