Says the guy who bashes religion so he doesnt feel bad about his own sins...
I believe a great man said, he without sin cast thy first stone... Who was that? i dont remember? or yeah.... jesus, but you dont believe in him... sorry...
"You're only an atheist so you can sin!"
Yeah and you're only a Christian so you don't need to go to Mecca.
The presence of a disembodied intelligence has been duly verified, thank you very much. You're so naive to think that such a being wouldn't see right through your experimentation that I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Just stumbled across this gem while hitting a random page.
If TheZizz is still around, care to point out what this might be?
Hey you piece of shit.... Don't presume to tell me that the most negative points are the core values. I'm talking about what a childhood of being raised a christian is like in this day and age.
If I met you in real life and you told me as much, I would kick the shit outta you.
Didn't you get humiliated enough last time you pretended to be a tough guy on the internet?
If you're too fragile to have your opinions challenged, you shouldn't be on the internet. Go away.
God created the heavens and the earth. He created it specifically for life. He created the animals, the birds, and all living creatures. He endowed them with intelligence. Just like AI cannot write itself magically in a compiler, neither can any form of intelligent sentience poof into existence. Maybe in wonderland, but even there, I dont know.
Thats the truth of the matter. You can go looking as to how it was done, and why things work the way they do, etc. Thats all nice and dandy, but the science all comes from God.
Thats just how it is. One should not consider running off and joining the circus with their jokes on multiverse, parallel universe, eternalverse, eternal time, laws of physics creating themselves etc. Its funny the first time around, but y`know. I used to be on that end of the stick, but thank God for knowledge(Really guys, really).
Honestly. Honestly. Honestly, and not to attack you in anyway but I think you dont understand evolution. Atleast not on a deep and intricate level. See, this is kinda like blind faith. My bad for not dropping the hammer on it(yet).
You think humanity has been around for 200k years. I dont even know what to say to that lol.:/
100k to 250k.
I understand evolution because I had a university professor teach me rather than my local priest.
You don't know what to say to it because science trumps the bible.
Evolution is a theory and nothing more, and one that is looked upon less and less as time goes on. According to evolution, we are just a few million years from being a coconut.
You don't understand evolution.
If someone walked up to you and stated "According to Christianity, we're just a few decades away from being muslims", you'd laugh at them.
Evolution can be taught in school as long as we are not jumping to conclusions on matters, and also filling people in on the many many gaps the `theory` presents. That would be a scientific way of doing it, rather than brushing off our current misguided understanding of evolution as fact/truth.
Unfortunately evolution is as much a fact as the Earth orbits the sun. I hope you remember your stance when the Church eventually cracks and proclaims "Oh so it was evolution all along. Isn't God's work wondrous?" just like they did with flat Earth, geocentrism, demons causing disease and all the other failures of the bible.
Since when was this thread solely about your hate for Christians Eiviyn? Let people believe in dragons, Jesus Christ please help this sad sack of flesh remove the giant stick from his rectum......
I know the bible is completely written by man and holds no real value what so ever, but I was raised a christian and hold true to its core values. And I would like to believe at least some of it. I dunno what kinda hell hole you come from to have so much disdain.... but when the hell did this thread become your personal hall of hating.
I think we can all see where your coming from....... but whats your point really.... your trying to disprove it all? convert us? Prove your self better? I have no idea what the argument in this thread is aboot....
Other then your epeening about religion being fake......
Did Santa clause never visit you?
Or were your parents boring Atheists with ginormous sticks up there asses as well.
Hello SouLCarveRR,
Are you aware that Christians are pushing their bible onto others to take away their rights such as gay marriage?
Are you aware that Christians are attempting to push nonsense into the science classroom?
Are you aware that Christians are attempting to belittle the work of actual scientists in the fields of geology, biology and cosmology because it doesn't mesh with their bronze-age beliefs?
My point was that while you are busy nitpicking at religious folks for not selling all that they own and giving everything to the poor, non-religious folks aren't really doing much better. I'm curious why you are still in this conversation and why you haven't sold your computer to help some starting African children. I'm sure you could buy a few months worth of meals for a single family from the money you would get. Of course, I would never expect anyone to do such a thing - charity is not about expectations. If it were, it would not be charity. I just think you're being a little unfair toward religious people. And religious institutions. Your attitude has a strong hint of pompous elitism and it smells awful.
I'm all for non-religious people giving to the poor. If that's improving, then all for the better. It's not a competition.
The religious use the bible to deny the rights of others. The religious also don't follow the bible very well.
Secondly, you're making shit up.
Quote:
The current most charitable individuals in the United States, based on “Estimated Lifetime Giving,” are:
:::::::::::::::::::::
"Since emotional processes can work faster than the mind, it takes a power stronger than the mind to bend perception, override emotional circuitry, and provide us with intuitive feeling instead. It takes the power of the heart."
Snip
So basically you believe that the sinoatrial node is your soul?
NOOO DON'T TAKE THE MYSTERY AWAY
I can hear your cognitive dissonance scream.
Ready to answer my questions yet, or still dodging?
TheZizz already dealt with that. Its a very herp derp type of question that, I dont know, people expect a ....Wait, just this in, The cake I was planning to bake just baked itself. It created itself!!. Goodluck proving it did not require a cause. Why the cake dun that?, Dunno, How the cake dun that?, Dunno, Why the cake dun that when it did, Dunno, What made the cake dun that?, Dunno. Time to create illogical theories to make the illogical seem plausible. Be right back. Dont believe anything else no matter how obvious it seems, cuz ye never know`.
"Creationists never answer this question. They always dodge."
God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal source of all reality and being.<Logically, and obviously?
What makes you think time is eternal?. Can you prove that?. If anything can be eternal, why do the heathen refuse the God concept?(And we add intelligence to that because its self evident). The first cause is beyond time, and beyond entropy/cause and effect. Otherwise the universe could not have been created.
He's indescribable. Okay. Why then do you insist on giving him attributes? Are you admitting then that you make these attributes up?
Apart from already dismantling your theories on multiverse, parallel universes, eternal universes, (pity had not did the Evolution part), and clearly demonstrating tangible evidence for intelligent design while dismissing the notions of randomness and chance(Chaos Gods). Ive already shown the Bible to be Historically accurate, Scientifically accurate and Factually accurate as far as possible. The claims made in the Bible are huge, but the 3 mentioned aspects can back it up. Unlike any other religion, Which Ive even challenged but no atheist made an attempt(The Quran was paltry effort. Where are the Zillion other religions that confound us for choice!?)
I never proposed any of those things.
I'll remind you, since you forgot; "If god doesn't need a cause, then why can't the universe/multiverse/whateververse have that attribute?"
I've still not had an answer to this question from you. Just more dodges.
"Why doesn't God heal amputees?"
From another source:
Your question seems to merely be a very specific re-articulation of the general argument against God due to the existence of evil. Formally restating your argument:
-An omnipotent God would heal amputees.
-Amputees are not healed.
-Therefore, an omnipotent God does not exist.
You could just as easily replace the major premise with anything else unpleasant: why do people lose limbs in the first place? The ultimate question you’re really asking is Why Does God’s Creation Include Death and Suffering? If you already believe that flaws in the world disprove God, then naming any flaw that God doesn’t fix—or any good deed God doesn’t do—will just reaffirm your perspective.
Nah, that's not it. People think prayer helps.
Prayer has not once in recorded history been used to successfully heal an amputee.
Why? Because that's one of the few things that your body can't self-heal.
Cancer can go into remission, illnesses can fade, and nothing fails like prayer.
Answering your question completely requires a few tangential comments:
-Miracles aren’t a grab-bag of goodies for us to enjoy; rather, God uses miracles in particular points of time for very specific purposes. God doesn't need to prove Himself to us (we’re on trial, not Him), nor does He “need” to bless us. When He does bless us, it is entirely out of mercy.
Funny how he stopped performing miracles since the invention of video and audio recording devices though, isn't it?
-God has done greater works than restoring limbs. If He created the entire universe out of nothing, spoke all plants and animals into existence, sculpted and breathed life into the first two humans, and raised His Son from death, it is clear that He has the power to heal amputees if and when it is His will.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is God neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
-If there is no God, why should we care if people have lost limbs? To borrow from C. S. Lewis, in a truly godless world, amputations wouldn’t be “good” or “bad”; they would simply be, a fact of life no different from a tree shedding leaves. Attacking theism on a moral basis undermines the argument.
Human compassion and solidarity, perhaps? Doing good things without having to believe you're going to get some celestial reward, perhaps? Generally not being selfish, maybe?
-You qualify your own question with “[e]xcept the ear that Jesus put it back.” You may as well ask, “If God is all-powerful, why did He never part the Red Sea—except for that one time in Exodus?” And not only is your argument qualified; it is also, essentially, an argument from silence. Even if the Bible doesn’t record the healing of an amputee, that doesn’t mean God never has
Just like people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, this is completely worthless without verifiable proof.
Your beliefs are proven absurdities, Your reasons for disbelief are subjective and bias, You hardly display an apt for looking at things in the possibility it might be true. Dont need anything else to say.
I only believe in things that are demonstrable. The rest, I admit that I don't know rather than lie and pretend I do.
I still haven't seen Eiviyn's "if there has to be an unmoved mover, why does it have to be God instead of the universe itself?" argument countered properly.
I'll get no reply to it. I've never seen anyone give a reasonable response to anyone who's asked it, and I thoroughly enjoy watching religious debates. It's always dodged.
"Prove your religion is the right religion."
"Prove your god doesn't require a cause."
"Why doesn't God heal amputees?"
Not played the last one yet, but those are my favourite cards.
I'm not going to assume that you meant ALL cases of appendicitis are fatal without surgery, because that's false. I am, however, going to suggest that you look into what causes appendicitis or where appendicitis is most common. Obviously we're still in the research phase, but we're beginning to see a relationship with appendicitis in diet, race/geography (often affects diet), smoking, pollution and several other intestinal problems (Crohn's in my case).
I should have said "modern medicine". My point was that humanity has existed for the past 100,000 to 250,000 years. For 99% of that time-frame, appendicitis was death. Furthermore the age range appendicitis affects the most is 16-20; prime breeding age.
I can see "all of this only proves how much of a liability the appendix is" coming, but let's think about the religious side of this. God instructed us on what to eat and how to treat our bodies (each religion has different interpretations) and many of us ignore these instructions. Is it His fault for allowing our choices to harm us, or our fault for making those choices?
The old "we're corrupt because of original sin" argument. I can't refute this, because it's not falsifiable.
On that note though, the instructions are incredibly vague and typically don't mesh with modern life. The mormon "hot drinks" instruction is something I feel would be the best example to give. I'm sure you know the story. Poor coca-cola.
If I were a god and I gave instructions, they'd be crystal clear. God is meant to be omnipotent, after all.
Whether or not you believe in God doesn't matter because to argue against God requires you to be willing to adopt the context of God. In this way, to suggest God designed us poorly is misguided if we do not operate our bodies in the way God instructed us to do so. If God doesn't exist, this doesn't matter and your point is moot. If God does exist, your point is still moot because it is forfeiting the responsibility we have for our bodies. You are focusing on possible negative outcomes rather than how they were derived.
How do you reconcile this statement with the idea of a benevolent creator? Just curious. It seems rather malicious to plant a biological bomb in every human's body that detonates in 1 out of every 20 people.
We falsely use this exact argument in a wide variety of situations, an easily relatable one being video games. Someone might say, "[FPS title] sucks balls because you don't command an army of thousands." Others will argue, "The game wasn't designed for RTS, you're doing it wrong."
Stepping back into the realm of science, we are quick to reject God when religion tries to credit Him for what we don't understand, but are equally quick to blame God for what we don't understand when doing so would undermine His existence.
I disagree, and this is one of my pet peeves about religions. Plenty of religious people can look at a beautiful setback and say to themselves "Isn't God's work beautiful?" Few feel that when looking at the underbelly of a taranchula.
Secondly, that recent earthquake I think validates my point. People are quick to thank God for saving them from natural disasters, but pretty quick to blame their fellow man instead when the opposite happens.
The line of thinking most arguments against intelligent design employ often devolves to, "Why didn't God make humans the most perfectest peoples ever in the history of evers!? Why aren't we invulnerable!? Clearly God is an idiot and I could do better." I'm exaggerating the point, but I think you can see what about this I find unreasonable. I agree parts of the body could be more efficient, but I credit much of this to a lack of understanding. If science is really about the truth, it should be focused on discovering it rather than ignoring it.
Firstly it's not a "lack of understanding" regarding these inefficient parts. We can trace WHY they are in this dysnfunctional state because of our ancestors. The primate hominids we evolved from used their appendix to store bacteria which could digest plant cell walls, allowing them to better subsist of a diet of plants. We don't do this anymore, and the organ has been relegated to the dustbin along with a variety of other parts.
As for "well we don't have to be made perfect for there to be a god", you're right, we don't. I don't have an argument against that and I agree with the statement. I just want it to be clear that the human body could be improved by a medical student in a few hours by only taking things away, let alone a god.
I've repeatedly mentioned that I believe God used evolution to create humanity. Why do you and nearly everyone here insist that they must be separate?
The thing with the religious is that you never know what you're going to get. You all have different beliefs and different levels of those beliefs. Most reject evolution. You're an exception, and I applaud your acceptance of theistic evolution.
Every organ in the body can kill you. . . This is a generic template for arguing why any organ in the body is "imperfect" because in reality they all are. I argue this point because I view our understanding of the appendix the same way most view bloodletting or former uses of electroshock therapy. We hardly understand what the appendix is for yet jump to the conclusion that it has no use. This then misleads us to assume it is safe to remove, should be removed and God is an idiot for letting us have it.
You're right, but it's not the same thing. You can die of a heart attack, but you need a heart. It's a requirement. You can die of appendicitis but you don't need an appendix. At all. If we could edit out the genetic code that forms the appendix, we'd have less people die.
Furthermore we know exactly what appendixes are for, because they exist in many other animals who do use them. It's not a case of ignorance.
The tonsils are another part of the body we don't understand and routinely remove. Just because we can remove these things doesn't mean that doing so is desirable and we are better off for it. We could certainly remove an arm or leg (or both) and survive, but you don't see people claiming God is an idiot for this. If anything, the resilience of the body (google "man with half a brain") in spite of severe damage says more about why we can lose our appendix or tonsils than the actual purpose of either. The body adapts to suit our needs. If we dubbed every replaceable or removable part of the body "useless" we'd have quite the list. Much of the body is designed to facilitate removal in the case of irreparable damage.
There's "useless", there's "could be safely removed" and then there's "having it inside you is a danger".
The plantaris muscle in the back of your foot is useless. It's from the days where we required greater foot manipulation and control to hang onto trees. It is found in many primates. We are no longer capable of this control, yet still retain the muscle. It, however, doesn't cause much harm and can simply be labeled as useless.
"could safely be removed" is essentially your arm/leg argument. You could remove it, however that would have a negative impact on average human life-span.
"having it inside you is a danger" is exactly what the appendix is. Removing it from the human genome and restarting human history would see better survival rates of humanity.
It bothers me that science enthusiasts rail against religion for jumping to conclusions, yet have no qualms doing so themselves. I agree that religious people have a tendency to jump the shark and make factual statements that can't be supported, but many use science to do the same thing. You can't attack religion or ideas supported by religion by employing the same methods you deride religious individuals for using.
The difference is that science is self-checking. Many scientists do jump to conclusions. In fact, starting with a proposed conclusion is the first thing you do in every test. An error in a scientific field will eventually be corrected.
Religion opposes change and has a colourful history of executing people who tried to correct it.
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." -The Dalai Lama
This is actually one of the reasons why Buddhism is so respected by atheists. It's a religion. It has it's own variety of stupid, unproveable beliefs. However if science shows a flaw in Buddhism, then Buddhism changes.
I didn't get to address your point that the coccyx has no use, but that's not true either. It is important for muscles, tendons and ligaments. Wisdom teeth would have been a much better part of the body to point to, but I doubt that would have been as dramatic or effective at linking death to God's "unitelligent design."
I chose the coccyx because it's another relic of our primate hominid ancestors. You can see the bone being put to use today in primates as part of their tail structures.
I feel that on this particular point, you are making the mistake of believing we have such definitive knowledge of the appendix that what you say is fact. Most respected sources specifically mention "we don't know/understand" somewhere in their description. You can't call it a "fatal flaw in our design" when we don't have a complete understanding of what that design is.
I feel like you're close to invoking god of the gaps here. Furthermore we have a solid understanding of most of human biology, and the evolutionary history of most of our organs. Organs like your brain still retain an air of mystery. Your appendix does not.
I've looked over your list and I can agree that some of the points make sense, but this particular point is not one of them. I don't consider the "inefficiency" of the human body a "brute fact" when many of these points lose validity as our understanding of them grows.
As I said, a junior medical student could upgrade a human body by only removing things in an hour in a fashion that would, overall, improve human survivability and the efficiency of the human body. I provided a list of things that are wrong with our "design". You can question the integrity or use of these items, but be aware that you are going against established medical consensus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"You're only an atheist so you can sin!"
Yeah and you're only a Christian so you don't need to go to Mecca.
Just stumbled across this gem while hitting a random page.
If TheZizz is still around, care to point out what this might be?
Didn't you get humiliated enough last time you pretended to be a tough guy on the internet?
If you're too fragile to have your opinions challenged, you shouldn't be on the internet. Go away.
"God did it. Don't ask questions."
100k to 250k.
I understand evolution because I had a university professor teach me rather than my local priest.
You don't know what to say to it because science trumps the bible.
They have the right as human beings to be entitled to the same rights as every other human being.
You don't understand evolution.
If someone walked up to you and stated "According to Christianity, we're just a few decades away from being muslims", you'd laugh at them.
I'm laughing at you.
Unfortunately evolution is as much a fact as the Earth orbits the sun. I hope you remember your stance when the Church eventually cracks and proclaims "Oh so it was evolution all along. Isn't God's work wondrous?" just like they did with flat Earth, geocentrism, demons causing disease and all the other failures of the bible.
Hello SouLCarveRR,
Are you aware that Christians are pushing their bible onto others to take away their rights such as gay marriage?
Are you aware that Christians are attempting to push nonsense into the science classroom?
Are you aware that Christians are attempting to belittle the work of actual scientists in the fields of geology, biology and cosmology because it doesn't mesh with their bronze-age beliefs?
You ask your question from abject ignorance.
He has no religion. Call it whatever you want.
The religious use the bible to deny the rights of others. The religious also don't follow the bible very well.
Secondly, you're making shit up.
So basically you believe that the sinoatrial node is your soul?
NOOO DON'T TAKE THE MYSTERY AWAY
I can hear your cognitive dissonance scream.
Ready to answer my questions yet, or still dodging?
Make Allah the Permanent Resident in the mansion of your heart.
"Creationists never answer this question. They always dodge."
He's indescribable. Okay. Why then do you insist on giving him attributes? Are you admitting then that you make these attributes up?
Yeah okay. Science disagrees.
I never proposed any of those things.
I'll remind you, since you forgot; "If god doesn't need a cause, then why can't the universe/multiverse/whateververse have that attribute?"
I've still not had an answer to this question from you. Just more dodges.
Nah, that's not it. People think prayer helps.
Prayer has not once in recorded history been used to successfully heal an amputee.
Why? Because that's one of the few things that your body can't self-heal.
Cancer can go into remission, illnesses can fade, and nothing fails like prayer.
Funny how he stopped performing miracles since the invention of video and audio recording devices though, isn't it?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is God neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
Human compassion and solidarity, perhaps? Doing good things without having to believe you're going to get some celestial reward, perhaps? Generally not being selfish, maybe?
Just like people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, this is completely worthless without verifiable proof.
I only believe in things that are demonstrable. The rest, I admit that I don't know rather than lie and pretend I do.
I'll get no reply to it. I've never seen anyone give a reasonable response to anyone who's asked it, and I thoroughly enjoy watching religious debates. It's always dodged.
"Prove your religion is the right religion."
"Prove your god doesn't require a cause."
"Why doesn't God heal amputees?"
Not played the last one yet, but those are my favourite cards.
I should have said "modern medicine". My point was that humanity has existed for the past 100,000 to 250,000 years. For 99% of that time-frame, appendicitis was death. Furthermore the age range appendicitis affects the most is 16-20; prime breeding age.
The old "we're corrupt because of original sin" argument. I can't refute this, because it's not falsifiable.
On that note though, the instructions are incredibly vague and typically don't mesh with modern life. The mormon "hot drinks" instruction is something I feel would be the best example to give. I'm sure you know the story. Poor coca-cola.
If I were a god and I gave instructions, they'd be crystal clear. God is meant to be omnipotent, after all.
How do you reconcile this statement with the idea of a benevolent creator? Just curious. It seems rather malicious to plant a biological bomb in every human's body that detonates in 1 out of every 20 people.
I disagree, and this is one of my pet peeves about religions. Plenty of religious people can look at a beautiful setback and say to themselves "Isn't God's work beautiful?" Few feel that when looking at the underbelly of a taranchula.
Secondly, that recent earthquake I think validates my point. People are quick to thank God for saving them from natural disasters, but pretty quick to blame their fellow man instead when the opposite happens.
Firstly it's not a "lack of understanding" regarding these inefficient parts. We can trace WHY they are in this dysnfunctional state because of our ancestors. The primate hominids we evolved from used their appendix to store bacteria which could digest plant cell walls, allowing them to better subsist of a diet of plants. We don't do this anymore, and the organ has been relegated to the dustbin along with a variety of other parts.
As for "well we don't have to be made perfect for there to be a god", you're right, we don't. I don't have an argument against that and I agree with the statement. I just want it to be clear that the human body could be improved by a medical student in a few hours by only taking things away, let alone a god.
The thing with the religious is that you never know what you're going to get. You all have different beliefs and different levels of those beliefs. Most reject evolution. You're an exception, and I applaud your acceptance of theistic evolution.
You're right, but it's not the same thing. You can die of a heart attack, but you need a heart. It's a requirement. You can die of appendicitis but you don't need an appendix. At all. If we could edit out the genetic code that forms the appendix, we'd have less people die.
Furthermore we know exactly what appendixes are for, because they exist in many other animals who do use them. It's not a case of ignorance.
There's "useless", there's "could be safely removed" and then there's "having it inside you is a danger".
The plantaris muscle in the back of your foot is useless. It's from the days where we required greater foot manipulation and control to hang onto trees. It is found in many primates. We are no longer capable of this control, yet still retain the muscle. It, however, doesn't cause much harm and can simply be labeled as useless.
"could safely be removed" is essentially your arm/leg argument. You could remove it, however that would have a negative impact on average human life-span.
"having it inside you is a danger" is exactly what the appendix is. Removing it from the human genome and restarting human history would see better survival rates of humanity.
The difference is that science is self-checking. Many scientists do jump to conclusions. In fact, starting with a proposed conclusion is the first thing you do in every test. An error in a scientific field will eventually be corrected.
Religion opposes change and has a colourful history of executing people who tried to correct it.
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." -The Dalai Lama
This is actually one of the reasons why Buddhism is so respected by atheists. It's a religion. It has it's own variety of stupid, unproveable beliefs. However if science shows a flaw in Buddhism, then Buddhism changes.
I chose the coccyx because it's another relic of our primate hominid ancestors. You can see the bone being put to use today in primates as part of their tail structures.
I feel like you're close to invoking god of the gaps here. Furthermore we have a solid understanding of most of human biology, and the evolutionary history of most of our organs. Organs like your brain still retain an air of mystery. Your appendix does not.
As I said, a junior medical student could upgrade a human body by only removing things in an hour in a fashion that would, overall, improve human survivability and the efficiency of the human body. I provided a list of things that are wrong with our "design". You can question the integrity or use of these items, but be aware that you are going against established medical consensus.