Other A serious question to atheists...

[Hall Kervean]

You're also overestimating autistic 3 year olds.

3c
Wow, that was, I'm sorry.
Faith makes God a sadist?
You use faith every day!
Sitting on a chair requires faith. Not worrying about international issues requires faith. Driving requires faith and prayers.
Especially when I'm driving O_o

So, you're a sadist, too, since you have faith in chairs. Gosh, man. I don't want to even touch your aura.

And why don't they accept the cross? You tell me. You haven't, I have. That's something you already know the answer to in your own heart.

"Miracles" don't actually show who God are, as there aren't many stories of stoic atheists seeing a miracle and immediately changing their ways, except in movies. People only credit God because they are looking for signs from God, so that if something happens that was supposed to happen anyway, they say it was because of God. That's actually the entire reason Christianity is still a religion at all. It's one of the fundamental flaws of human nature, to see what we're looking for even if it isn't there.

I'm exhausted, so I'm really sorry if I begin losing all my tact and stuff.
Sorry if my passive-aggressiveness loses its passiveness.

Yeah, I know.
Dunkirk wasn't a miracle. Hitler just happened to stop all his tanks for some reason.
Existence of life itself isn't a miracle, considering our life-force emerged from an explosion, that then generated a motorboat that can rival ours, which turned into a person after a while longer, somehow.
Or, if you pick up what I'm laying down, divine intervention.
Even devout atheists sometimes pray to God when their car is going off a cliff, or when in combat.

 

[Mkirshnikov]

A serious question to atheists in this forum...

Are you an atheist because you genuinely, truly believe and are convinced that there is no God, or are you an atheist simply because you're mad at God for not letting things go your way?

I ask because I was once an atheist. I was an atheist not because I didn't believe in God, but because I was mad at him for not making me the lord of the known universe. I was immature back then.

99% of Atheists don't believe there is no god, they do not believe there is one. I know, it sounds the same, but it isn't. Believing there isn't one would mean you have evidence to prove there isn't one. Not believing there is one means there isn't enough evidence to prove one exists or doesn't exist, so you choose to not believe one exists.

Basically, "I believe it isn't real" VS "I don't believe it's real"

 

[Hall Kervean]

I argue the passage was completely relevant.
Why did God not reveal himself to you?
You didn't look.
Matthew 7:7.

 

[Ironrot]

Hall Kervean 's posts are in blue

Now it's Sano's turn.
To refer to himself in third person.

If we zoomed in, one might think tiny mutations over time.
Sure, it's hard to think, but it's easy to believe.
Take the motor on a bacteria.
We base our motor designs off of it.
It's still more efficient than ours are, at least as of like 2013.
There are more than forty interconnecting parts. Now, there's a tiny chance that all forty were in the same area, and happened to be lying around. Via the force, magnets, and pure, unbridled SCIENCE, they came together to form a motor that outmatches our carefully designed and tested motors.

Provide a source for that figure '40 parts'. Also, you don't need 40 parts to make a motor. Look at an electric motor, they need about 3.

Zoom out a little farther.
Now we see the other parts of the bacteria.
Mitochondria! Without it, nothing works! It has numerous interconnecting parts in and of itself! For instance, where the reactions take place, it forms sort of "ripples" to have more efficient burning of nutrients.
Cytoplasm! Without it, nothing would go where it needed to! Cytoplasm is pretty simple, but it needs to be created by the cell itself, or by other cells. It can't just appear.
Nucleus! The center of the cell, where DNA (with billions of strands and, if even ONE is wrong, the entire cell if screwed over.) works out the construction of the mitochondria and other stuff on the molecular level. It also controls the motor, the movement, and any instincts the bacteria has.

Just because something is complicated, doesn't mean it can't evolve. Thats sort of the whole point.

Zoom out a bit farther.
Now we have a bacteria.
Let's call him steve.
Steve has instincts and needs.
Now, as we all know, without food Steve would perish. But if Steve was just a collection of the billions or so exact pieces that are needed to form a bacteria, he wouldn't know that. Steve would starve and die. But, Steve does know it. He knows where to get food, how to get the food, how to reproduce, how to identify threats, how to colonize, how to breathe, etc.
If Steve's DNA screwed up (one starand out of billions. Strand is misspelled on accident. I, an intelligent person, made a mistake, and I'm at maybe 1K words, at most.), then Steve would suffocate, starve, be eaten, or be infertile. That's not counting his natural abilities, like surviving high temperatures and such.

Steve doesn't know that. Steve doesn't know anything. Steve's entire driving process is an electrochemical reaction that developed to wobble him in the direction of food. Also, study how neurons works as individuals and you will plainly see how chemical can trigger reactions with no intelligent process (at least, not in the human sense)

Zoom out a bit farther.
Now we have a bunch of bacteria. Steve's neighbors.
When another bacteria dies, one bacteria can pick up its DNA and become immune to, say, higher temperatures.
Bacteria know exactly what other bacteria are, and can cooperate with them to form a colony. Enough so that they can become visible. They can work together to evade and hunt, and it works in perfect cohesion.

I'm going to need to ask for a source for this. Also, still not any evidence against evolution.

We started at forty parts.
Then there's probably thousands, without DNA.
With it, that's billions.
With multiple bacteria, that's well into the quadrillions of required interconnecting parts that must work exactly right to create a colony that can effectively hunt and eat.
Leave a lego guy sitting on the floor for three billion years. It won't come together.

Again, complexity isn't the issue. No disproof of evolution. If it helps, consider that this developed in stages, it didn't appear from nowhere. Once you have one reproducing bacteria, how many it can reproduce is irrelevant. Population numbers are easy.

That's for a simple microorganism.
Not to mention the earth itself and the stars that just "happened" to come along, along with every other creature in existence.

Nothing just 'happened' to come along. Unless you mean the initial point of the big bang 'happened to come along' in which case so did God just 'happen to come along' and the whole argument is just kind moot.

Hall Kervean Like I've said, you need a better understanding of the theory before you dispute it. I get the impression that you are not interested to learn, in which case I guess we just leave this debate here. If you do have questions, or would like to learn otherwise please ask.

Keep in mind, end of the day I'm not saying that you have to agree that evolution is the one mechanism and definitely correct. I'm just trying to help you understand it. (Plus this has been a great opportunity to brush up on this stuff myself).

It might be worth pointing out that there are experiences that have been done to show empirical evidence that genes do mutate. These also show behaviour that fits survival of the fittest. If you would like, I can look one up for you, but I'll give you the option of saying 'nah' before I put in the effort.

 

[Soul Stealer]

A serious question to atheists in this forum...

Are you an atheist because you genuinely, truly believe and are convinced that there is no God, or are you an atheist simply because you're mad at God for not letting things go your way?

I ask because I was once an atheist. I was an atheist not because I didn't believe in God, but because I was mad at him for not making me the lord of the known universe. I was immature back then.

I once was an atheist because everyone around me as I was raised was Christian. EVERYONE. But for me, the possibility of God existing - an omnipresent, supernatural being that, on his own, created the entire universe - sounded outright ridiculous.

Now I'm just Irreligious because idgaf anymore. It's also why I tend to walk the other way when people get all righteous when telling who their god is or that gods are irrelevant and twist the souls of humanity. I couldn't care less about what deity so and so believes in, because whichever one it is - or isn't - , It's still doing the thing religion is known for. Giving people who want answers some answers. Life is death? God created the universe? Eat a hotdog on Fridays? (actual thing) You do you, however it helps you, and I'll do me.

 

[Hall Kervean]

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-incredible-images-reveal-bacteria-motor.html
http://www.kurzweilai.net/electron-...otor-parts-in-incredible-unprecedented-detail
(Going off the diagrams. Twenty is a bit of an exaggeration from memory on my part, my sincerest apologies. It was entirely unintentional in that manner)

https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...#v=onepage&q=bacteria behavior causes&f=false (That shows behavior in general, which is what I'm talking about.)
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020135 (That shows the exact behavior of some bacteria, just regarding to death.)

I will admit I personified Steve, but that shouldn't make a difference, as I did accurately describe the behavior. I recognize that it's a series of chemicals being fired off, but they're fired off in just such a way as to make the behavior possible.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228476/
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/bacteria-can-take-ancient-dna/
(The latter says it can be used to evolve itself; but we have yet to see anything come from the bacteria into anything resembling a multi-cellular organism as a result of absorbing DNA)

I wasn't using that to directly say it wasn't real. So you're kind of right in that regard.


If you have one that produces seven, and the one, never having had more than one before, doesn't know how to react, then it won't react in the right way. More than likely, they would screw up, and we'd be back at square one, with six billion years wasted.

I'm not trying to disprove evolution.
I was asking you to take a step back and look at the complexity of the simplest life form on earth.

I was referring to the big bang. But God's "happened to come along" was supernatural, the big bang theory claims it wasn't. God made it happen with an intelligent design, the big bang just kinda happened or whatever.


So far, everything you've shown me is "because it happened that way."
And everything I've been trying to tell you is that it's "because God put it that way."


I was trying to point out the complexity of the simplest thing on earth (screwing viruses over, of course), and how if even one thing went wrong on that one being, the entire evolutionary system doesn't work.
Now, from what I've been hearing, you think there was some intermediate level of bacteria before the things we had today.
I personally believe that's a grasp at straws, since there's no physical evidence of that, but let's humor ye.
From, say, 2 billion years on, we've had simple bacteria.
In the last 500 million years, we've gotten small mammals. The bacteria, a simpler organism, doesn't have as many things to "evolve" as the small mammals do. As a result, the bacteria ha moved from a mere floating and reproducing glob of "stuff" (which wouldn't be able to actually function or do anything, but we're still on hypotheticals) to something that, while inferior to modern-day bacteria, is still potent.
Small mammals, in the meantime, are much, much simpler than the ones today. In fact, they're disgustingly gross to look at. They don't resemble anything we see today, and biologically, they're inferior to today's. They can consume plants, though they have fewer nutrients since they haven't reached their pinnacle yet. They could consume lower life forms, like bugs.
(I hope you don't mind me comparing their biological efficiencies like this. I'm beginning to sound like Hitler to even myself, and I don't like it.)
Now, this biologically inferior, let's say rodent, can't survive long in this kind of environment. Why?
Survival of the fittest, of course.
The rodent is a relatively recent creation. It's only been around maybe a thousand years. During that time, the rodent has already sustained a high casualty rate, simply because its new organs that have never been seen before on planet earth have no natural defenses against the ruthless assault that has been brought on by bacteria, which has had 1.5B years to evolve itself to become even faster and more efficient. The rodent, meanwhile, has only had a thousand, and has other things it needs to evolve at the same time. Now, sure. The rodent has developed rudimentary defenses, but as can be seen, the bacteria have adapted and can outwit the natural defenses the rodent has presented. As a result, shortly after small mammals have begun existing, they are killed off by the bacteria, which is a superior genetic being (Oh man. I honestly sound like Hitler, and I'm sorry) to the rodent.

Basically, tl;dr, if the bacteria had longer to evolve than whatever early version of mammals that came along, there's a high probability that the bacteria could decimate any natural resistance presented in the all-new animal with pretty much new organs. Compared to the bacteria, which has maintained its base design for 1.5B years, and has had that same amount of time to adapt and become a ruthless killing machine, albeit inferior to the ones we see today.

tl;dr 2.0, ancient bacteria would curbstomp new lifeforms.

That's part of why I don't believe it. Either bacteria stopped evolving and waited for everything to catch up, or everything was killed off by the bacteria. There's probably not a third option, and if there is, please do enlighten me.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

What's up bitch - oh, oh Diety. Seems like you lot have been busy.

 

[h2h0e]

Welp, i'm atheist 'cause i'm supposed to be christian, but my family doesn't literally have the time for church 'cause work and stuff so i kind stopped beliveing

 

[Hall Kervean]

What's up bitch - oh, oh Diety. Seems like you lot have been busy.

I'm pushing past midnight to talk about this, when I usually go to bed at like ten thirty/eleven.
I'm beginning to hate this thread for that fact alone.

 

[The Fabulous Emerald]

I am atheist myself. The reason being is that there is no evidence that a God or Gods, from any religion, exist. At least, that science couldn't also prove to exist.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Also, Ironrot , at one point I was at a Christian school.
So some of the information I gave comes from a textbook. I don't recall the publisher, so I can't cite that.

 

[Ironrot]

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-incredible-images-reveal-bacteria-motor.html
http://www.kurzweilai.net/electron-...otor-parts-in-incredible-unprecedented-detail
(Going off the diagrams. Twenty is a bit of an exaggeration from memory on my part, my sincerest apologies. It was entirely unintentional in that manner)

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7YHHHJViCogC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=bacteria+behavior+causes&ots=TAKFpwcACB&sig=DcTdw2iZoXlCu3NevWWpebSbAKM#v=onepage&q=bacteria behavior causes&f=false (That shows behavior in general, which is what I'm talking about.)
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020135 (That shows the exact behavior of some bacteria, just regarding to death.)

I will admit I personified Steve, but that shouldn't make a difference, as I did accurately describe the behavior. I recognize that it's a series of chemicals being fired off, but they're fired off in just such a way as to make the behavior possible.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228476/
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/bacteria-can-take-ancient-dna/
(The latter says it can be used to evolve itself; but we have yet to see anything come from the bacteria into anything resembling a multi-cellular organism as a result of absorbing DNA)

I wasn't using that to directly say it wasn't real. So you're kind of right in that regard.


If you have one that produces seven, and the one, never having had more than one before, doesn't know how to react, then it won't react in the right way. More than likely, they would screw up, and we'd be back at square one, with six billion years wasted.

I'm not trying to disprove evolution.
I was asking you to take a step back and look at the complexity of the simplest life form on earth.

I was referring to the big bang. But God's "happened to come along" was supernatural, the big bang theory claims it wasn't. God made it happen with an intelligent design, the big bang just kinda happened or whatever.


So far, everything you've shown me is "because it happened that way."
And everything I've been trying to tell you is that it's "because God put it that way."


I was trying to point out the complexity of the simplest thing on earth (screwing viruses over, of course), and how if even one thing went wrong on that one being, the entire evolutionary system doesn't work.
Now, from what I've been hearing, you think there was some intermediate level of bacteria before the things we had today.
I personally believe that's a grasp at straws, since there's no physical evidence of that, but let's humor ye.
From, say, 2 billion years on, we've had simple bacteria.
In the last 500 million years, we've gotten small mammals. The bacteria, a simpler organism, doesn't have as many things to "evolve" as the small mammals do. As a result, the bacteria ha moved from a mere floating and reproducing glob of "stuff" (which wouldn't be able to actually function or do anything, but we're still on hypotheticals) to something that, while inferior to modern-day bacteria, is still potent.
Small mammals, in the meantime, are much, much simpler than the ones today. In fact, they're disgustingly gross to look at. They don't resemble anything we see today, and biologically, they're inferior to today's. They can consume plants, though they have fewer nutrients since they haven't reached their pinnacle yet. They could consume lower life forms, like bugs.
(I hope you don't mind me comparing their biological efficiencies like this. I'm beginning to sound like Hitler to even myself, and I don't like it.)
Now, this biologically inferior, let's say rodent, can't survive long in this kind of environment. Why?
Survival of the fittest, of course.
The rodent is a relatively recent creation. It's only been around maybe a thousand years. During that time, the rodent has already sustained a high casualty rate, simply because its new organs that have never been seen before on planet earth have no natural defenses against the ruthless assault that has been brought on by bacteria, which has had 1.5B years to evolve itself to become even faster and more efficient. The rodent, meanwhile, has only had a thousand, and has other things it needs to evolve at the same time. Now, sure. The rodent has developed rudimentary defenses, but as can be seen, the bacteria have adapted and can outwit the natural defenses the rodent has presented. As a result, shortly after small mammals have begun existing, they are killed off by the bacteria, which is a superior genetic being (Oh man. I honestly sound like Hitler, and I'm sorry) to the rodent.

Basically, tl;dr, if the bacteria had longer to evolve than whatever early version of mammals that came along, there's a high probability that the bacteria could decimate any natural resistance presented in the all-new animal with pretty much new organs. Compared to the bacteria, which has maintained its base design for 1.5B years, and has had that same amount of time to adapt and become a ruthless killing machine, albeit inferior to the ones we see today.

tl;dr 2.0, ancient bacteria would curbstomp new lifeforms.

That's part of why I don't believe it. Either bacteria stopped evolving and waited for everything to catch up, or everything was killed off by the bacteria. There's probably not a third option, and if there is, please do enlighten me.

I couldn't find the number 20 but that doesn't matter? Also, were several of those parts stators because optimisation by adding or removing existing parts is crazy easy in evolution.

Also, here's a simple motor. rotational motion is easy. Still cool example, I'll have to look it up more. My point here is, I could see that evolving then improving by evolving more elements.

If you wanted me to talk about Bacteria I'm not sure what your point is. The rodent answer below might help.

I'm not going to get into the origin of the universe. Everything is moving away from 1 point, that's a fact. What's at that point, whether it's God or its nothing, I find no use in debate.

On the rodent, you've misunderstood evolution there.

• Rodents did not appear 1000 years ago. Maybe some final trait on the modern rodent. Evolution isn't that fast.
• Rodents came from bacteria. All through the evolutionary journey there has been a precursor to rodents (it will not have looked at all like a rodent for a very, very long time).
• Rodents did just sprout new organs, that takes thousands of years

I'm afraid at that point you are just fundermentally wrong.

Also, keep in mind that species mutating poor traits and dying as a results is a crucial part of evolution. The species you see today are the ones that did not.

I'm pushing past midnight to talk about this, when I usually go to bed at like ten thirty/eleven.
I'm beginning to hate this thread for that fact alone.

Maybe we should work on one point at a time if you have more questions.

Also, Ironrot , at one point I was at a Christian school.
So some of the information I gave comes from a textbook. I don't recall the publisher, so I can't cite that.

Fair. I got the sources I wanted

 

[Hall Kervean]

On the rodent, you've misunderstood evolution there.

• Rodents did not appear 1000 years ago. Maybe some final trait on the modern rodent. Evolution isn't that far

I stated clearly that, in this example, the timeline was a hypothetical 500 million years.

• Rodents came from bacteria. All through the evolutionary journey there has been a precursor to rodents (it will not have looked at all like a rodent for a very, very long time).

Since bacteria exist today, we can assume that there was bacteria in the past. And while bacteria that didn't turn into rodents became lean, mean, infecting machines, the rodent is relatively new in the example.

• Rodents did just sprout new organs, that takes thousands of years

Not millions or billions.
Thousands.

 

[Ironrot]

On the rodent, you've misunderstood evolution there. I'll accept your correction there.

• Rodents did not appear 1000 years ago. Maybe some final trait on the modern rodent. Evolution isn't that far

I stated clearly that, in this example, the timeline was a hypothetical 500 million years.

• Rodents came from bacteria. All through the evolutionary journey there has been a precursor to rodents (it will not have looked at all like a rodent for a very, very long time).

Since bacteria exist today, we can assume that there was bacteria in the past. And while bacteria that didn't turn into rodents became lean, mean, infecting machines, the rodent is relatively new in the example.

• Rodents did just sprout new organs, that takes thousands of years

Not millions or billions.
Thousands.

Fair, I don't know where I got those thousands from. Maybe that's what I get for doing this on my phone.

Middle point: Rodents didn't lose their resistance to Bacteria by virtue of becoming rodents

 

[Collinbu98]

What the heck is this madness that I have never heard before.
Alrighty.
Where are they now?
Where is the evidence they ever existed?
I don't mean articles.
I mean forensic.
We have dinosaur bones.
Where's the forensic evidence of this stuff?

5. Actually, funny you should mention it, but most of the oldest and simplest organisms from the beginning of life have survived to today. You don't need forensics, you just need to go see for yourself some place. But I won't site those because I doubt you'd be satisfied with that, so instead I'll show you an article about how those early creatures were created. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup

Also, 8 is after everything is gone.
Geez, he's not a sadist.
Basically, when every human is gone (raptured out, post-millenial-kingdom), he will remove the tainted earth and universe in a quick breath of flame, and then recreate it perfectly.

8. God is still creating something he plans to destroy. That's a big hint towards sadism. Obviously that alone doesn't make him a sadist, as I do understand the whole big reasoning he has for everything, but God set a time limit for the Earth, and he plans to at some point undisclosed to anyone, start the apocolypse and send a bunch of people to Hell and a bunch of people to Heaven. Why?

7
Please. Don't try and convince me of that.
It's mere existence isn't chance, especially since we didn't even know about until the 80's.
It was placed there, alrighty.

7. I already told you, this isn't chance. It's how things work. You don't understand them, but that doesn't mean it somehow makes God a thing. Even if it were created by an all-powerful being, God still wouldn't be anywhere close to the likely choice.

6
I don't know it, doesn't mean nobody knows it.
I'm not who you need to judge it against, geez.
For now, let's just remove 6, since I can't give you any answer on that one.

6. Okay, and according to logic, if you can't argue something, you either learn so that you can argue it, or you relinquish your beliefs. You can't just discredit it because it doesn't support your answer. That's being illogical.

13
Because he doesn't want to reveal himself in that manner.
If he did, it would throw off his other prophecies about how he would be revealed in the last days and such.
13. But I wouldn't tempt fate all the same. He doesn't smite anyone all that often, but car accidents do happen.

I would happily tempt fate. God, if you're there, kill me in whatever way you can or feel like doing. Or otherwise, abandon all your followers who look upon me still standing now. God has a billion ways to kill me without revealing himself. But he's not going to, because he's not there.

12
Because Christianity has science for it, and honestly, if the Bible isn't written by God, then the person was a historical, mathematical, scientific, and literary genius.
Otherwise, it was written by fifty-five authors over a two thousand year span of time with no errors between and no consistency errors.

Remember, this is from a tired sophomore who should be doing his chemistry homework and isn't.
But much of my information comes from talks and such, which is un-cite-able.

I'm really tired lol, it's midnight.
But I'm getting the feeling of Matthew 11:25 right about now.

12. I... I really think you're just trying to mess with me now. The Bible is historical because it was written with history, it often makes mistakes in math and science, and while it's not a horrible book, I have seen better books. Just for that first point, there. And it was definitely written by many authors over a two thousand year time span, editting things whenever people felt like editing, and updating the book anytime common beliefs changed. And they did it with countless errors and consistency errors. If the Bible had no errors, I wouldn't be able to argue against it. If you want me to site a half dozen quotes that directly contrast each other, I can, but do I really need to? Because if you believe any of what you just said with that point I'm not sure I can reason with you any longer. I seriously can't comprehend anyone say anything you just said without layering their voice with a thick sheet of sarcasm.

11
Ugh, no it's not.
That's uranium dating.
And that's even more junk I don't want to dig up rn.
Uranium dating is dumb simply because we can't actually gauge how accurate it is.

11. No, we can take just about any unstable isotope and easily determine the Earth is older than six thousand years. Not all of them can be used for the age of the universe, but most of them can tell you that it's way older than you're making it out to be. That means you either need to believe in the Bible or in carbon dating. And one of those sources is much more reliable than the other.

9.
You know, that's just great.
Give you a day. That's about as long as it took Adam.
And, no duh. Adaption, and also because he named them in the angel language.
Before you call bull, Tower of Babel. Humans spoke the same language, and it's an easy guess that it was some angelic language they spoke, since Lucifer was able to speak to them, np.

9. I know about the Tower of Babel, the Bible says nothing about what the humans spoke before then, Lucifer can speak just about any language, and the fact that you're now trying to tell me Adam had to name all animals that have ever existed in one day while simultaneously telling me it's impossible means you're proving my point for me that the Bible is fundamentally wrong.

3c
Wow, that was, I'm sorry.
Faith makes God a sadist?
You use faith every day!
Sitting on a chair requires faith. Not worrying about international issues requires faith. Driving requires faith and prayers.
Especially when I'm driving O_o

So, you're a sadist, too, since you have faith in chairs. Gosh, man. I don't want to even touch your aura.

And why don't they accept the cross? You tell me. You haven't, I have. That's something you already know the answer to in your own heart.

3c. Well, yes, but you see, evidence-supported faith isn't faith. It's called logic. I sit on a chair because I probably wouldn't fall out of it because I haven't before, someone who doesn't worry about international issues is an idiot, and I don't need to pray to drive well when I know I can drive well. And having faith doesn't make you a sadist. Telling people that they need to believe everything you say with absolute certainty immediately and without any evidence and then giving them a set of strict rules before disappearing for two thousand years just to watch them squirm is very sadistic. And I don't accept the cross because it's not logical, so...?

"Miracles" don't actually show who God are, as there aren't many stories of stoic atheists seeing a miracle and immediately changing their ways, except in movies. People only credit God because they are looking for signs from God, so that if something happens that was supposed to happen anyway, they say it was because of God. That's actually the entire reason Christianity is still a religion at all. It's one of the fundamental flaws of human nature, to see what we're looking for even if it isn't there.

I'm exhausted, so I'm really sorry if I begin losing all my tact and stuff.
Sorry if my passive-aggressiveness loses its passiveness.

Yeah, I know.
Dunkirk wasn't a miracle. Hitler just happened to stop all his tanks for some reason.
Existence of life itself isn't a miracle, considering our life-force emerged from an explosion, that then generated a motorboat that can rival ours, which turned into a person after a while longer, somehow.
Or, if you pick up what I'm laying down, divine intervention.
Even devout atheists sometimes pray to God when their car is going off a cliff, or when in combat.

I didn't see anything all that special about Dunkirk. It was a battle. Some tactics were used. A lot of luck ended up involved. As I said, Christians see things differently from everyone else. You see God. I see a thing that happened. You can't credit everything to God, because to do that, you first must consider what would have happened anyways, and then decide that that could not happen before divine intervention becomes possible. A successful evacuation that wasn't supposed to be successful is not a miracle. A miracle would've been them winning that fight and not needing to evacuate at all. You see, you're proving my point by pointing out a loss and saying that because there wasn't even more loss, God. That's not how things happen. It's another logical fallacy.
Praying to God does not equal God existing, and people praying when their life is nearing a possible end is entirely due to desperation and fear of death, which is actually how the Bible gets its believers too! So thank you for explaining a wonderful reason why God doesn't really exist and how he was made up out of desperation. That, or that's another logical fallacy.

I argue the passage was completely relevant.
Why did God not reveal himself to you?
You didn't look.
Matthew 7:7.

Right... but I did look? Didn't I just tell you how I was a devout Christian for the first twelve to thirteen years of my life and I truly believed everything the Bible said? And how I came to this thread as part of my hope to either dispel God or find him again? That's not looking...? Or are you just saying I'm wrong because you don't actually have anything to support God, so you're making an idiotic attempt to sound spiritual so that I will back down from my questioning?

So far, everything you've shown me is "because it happened that way."
And everything I've been trying to tell you is that it's "because God put it that way."

Ooh, thank you so much for saying that so I could quote it! You're now admitting to the very basic logic fallacy of over-complicating things. You see, we say "because it is" and then you say "because it is... because God". Why does God need to be involved for it to make sense? You already told me your metaphysics for how God was created was wrong, which thus means you can now only validate his existence by pointing something out that would truly point towards him existing. But since you just admitted you're just appending what we're saying, you've therefore lost that part of the argument, and therefore God does not exist... That, or I want you to give me an excellent argument that proves God. You either have to pick one of those, question one of my logic points in making that thesis, or concede the debate.

I'm pushing past midnight to talk about this, when I usually go to bed at like ten thirty/eleven.
I'm beginning to hate this thread for that fact alone.

Same, honestly. Though between the two of us, I don't know who has it tougher. The one trying to argue against logic or the one trying to explain how logic works.


Also, you completely ignored, like, half of my argument, so here's it again to answer:

1. This still does not explain creatures that can only survive by living inside of another animal. Besides full-scale evolution, you can't have a creature that isn't physically capable of living outside a mammal suddenly and temporarily gain that ability. Or you would need another "God miracle", like with the dinosaur teeth. But the thing is, why would God give the creatures the ability to live independently and then relinquish that right after the Ark? And going back to dinosaur teeth, seriously, look up articles about how carnivores have evolved the teeth they have. Changing from plant to teeth to carnivore teeth is evolution, not adaptation. Well, it's evolution when taken to that degree.

" 2. Sure, why not, I'll roll with it. But for many of these creatures, they couldn't have traveled far enough to find their ideal climate even within several generations, and their species would die out as a result. I won't bother to look up the exact figures for this, but many animals and most all insects alive today would have gone extinct in the area they got off the ark at, especially since all of the Earth would still be heavily flooded at this point and most plant life would be dead. "
^You didn't answer that part of the question.
a. Firstly, I would like to state that, as part of the insect question, vegetation couldn't have floated above the surface of the water, because the article you provide reminded me that there was indeed the dove which brought the leaf on the second time it was sent out (or something along those lines). That means on the first time, the bird had to come back to the boat because there was no place to land, and no vegetation. When it did have some place to land on the third attempt, it didn't come back. So argue that. As for the matter of plant extinction, the link you provided, on its first point of exaggerated salinity, bases itself off of a much older Earth than you are personally willing to admit, so there's that. As for plants being different then, that points to evolution, another point you discredit. Another point only covers some plant species. Noah didn't collect all plant species, either, so that also only covers some plant species. The third reason is excluded by my first part of these points. And the final possibility mentioned by the article covers an even narrower band then the other two some categories. In the end, you are left with a poor article which is invalidated by your own belief system more than anything else. There would still be way too many missing plant species.

4. Okay, so this article says that the mountains didn't rise, everything else did... but why? And why do we have no geological evidence that that happened? I mean, seriously, that's a pretty big gesture even for a God.
/QUOTE]

Also, here's one more question: 14. You do realize you're not being logical and it's therefore impossible to hold a solid debate against you? I mean, on some topics you provide evidence, but not on all of them, and every question you can't answer is another reason to give up on God. Or, if through your illogical thought process you still think you're being logical, please explain to me from beginning to end your thesis statements on how the universe works.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Alrighty.
I say that, even if they hadn't, whatever creature (which we have not found forensic evidence for) that was between rodent and whatever came before it (I have no idea) would probably not have. Simply because it was transforming between whatever, like, phyla. Birds, reptile, etc. In the in-between phase, it would probably be at a disadvantage, cmpared to the bacteria, which has maintained its superior infection capabilities.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Collinbu98
It was midnight.

 

[Ironrot]

Alrighty.
I say that, even if they hadn't, whatever creature (which we have not found forensic evidence for) that was between rodent and whatever came before it (I have no idea) would probably not have. Simply because it was transforming between whatever, like, phyla. Birds, reptile, etc. In the in-between phase, it would probably be at a disadvantage, cmpared to the bacteria, which has maintained its superior infection capabilities.

Now your just speculating mate. I see no evidence or logic that that is the case.

 

[Hall Kervean]

5. Actually, funny you should mention it, but most of the oldest and simplest organisms from the beginning of life have survived to today. You don't need forensics, you just need to go see for yourself some place. But I won't site those because I doubt you'd be satisfied with that, so instead I'll show you an article about how those early creatures were created. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum[/QUOTE]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup


I see it cites the "RNA World," where RNA just happened to be scattered about and so when DNA formed, bingo. Life.
Which is complete bull in and of itself.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/
"More-recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller experiment."
That's a quote from the wikipedia article about the Miller-Urey experiment.

Aside from that, those aren't organisms you've shown me.
Back to square one on your argument.










8. God is still creating something he plans to destroy. That's a big hint towards sadism. Obviously that alone doesn't make him a sadist, as I do understand the whole big reasoning he has for everything, but God set a time limit for the Earth, and he plans to at some point undisclosed to anyone, start the apocolypse and send a bunch of people to Hell and a bunch of people to Heaven. Why?


He didn't plan to destroy it. He just knew it would turn out that way.
You've also missed the fact that he sends a rapture. He takes people who believe in him (of their own free will, mind you, which you keep ignoring) out of the earth three and a half years before then. When the Tribulations come, it'll come on sinners who aren't covered by the blood (because, of their own free will, they didn't believe in God and so weren't covered) and those who believed after the rapture, simply because of circumstance. He's not going to rapture them out after, they will have to suffer. However, after the Tribulations, they will be returned to him.
Aside from that, have you ever built something with legos, only to knock it down later?
What about sand castles?
Marshmallow and toothpick towers?
Sadist.





7. I already told you, this isn't chance. It's how things work. You don't understand them, but that doesn't mean it somehow makes God a thing. Even if it were created by an all-powerful being, God still wouldn't be anywhere close to the likely choice.





Let me quote you, "even if it were created by an all-powerful being, God still wouldn't be anywhere close to the likely choice."
That was hypocrisy and compromise in a sentence, if I've ever heard it.
He is the only all-powerful being out there, so there's that.
Even if in some far-flung stretch of the mind he wasn't, he would still be anywhere close to the likely choice to create that. After all, since he is an all-powerful being, he's much, much closer to everything else you could imagine.




6. Okay, and according to logic, if you can't argue something, you either learn so that you can argue it, or you relinquish your beliefs. You can't just discredit it because it doesn't support your answer. That's being illogical.

I didn't.
I said I don't know the answer.
I also said we should drop it.
I see you're not respecting my wishes.
I handed you that one, simply because I don't know a metaphysical answer.
But when you said (science 1, God 0), That's wrong.
It's *(philosophy 1, God 0)
Geez, get it right





I would happily tempt fate. God, if you're there, kill me in whatever way you can or feel like doing. Or otherwise, abandon all your followers who look upon me still standing now. God has a billion ways to kill me without revealing himself. But he's not going to, because he's not there.


No.
Because he doesn't want to.
And because you can't tell him what to do.
He's not going to act because you're trying to provoke him.







12. I... I really think you're just trying to mess with me now. The Bible is historical because it was written with history, it often makes mistakes in math and science, and while it's not a horrible book, I have seen better books. Just for that first point, there.




You have yet to explain how God, or, alternatively, the author of this book, managed to figure out how germs spread bacteria during Moses's day, and figure out a solution for it.
I really think you're just ignoring the fact that Moses alone recounted over a thousand years of history, from the Flood to his day.
And what better books hath thou seen?
What other books have shaped even our calendars?
That's right. The place where the concept of the week comes from is the Bible.




And it was definitely written by many authors over a two thousand year time span, editting things whenever people felt like editing, and updating the book anytime common beliefs changed. And they did it with countless errors and consistency errors.

There are people who have tried to prove those consistency errors. Those people have become Christians.
How about you read the Bible how it was written.
In ancient Hebrew?
Or maybe read it, full stop.


If the Bible had no errors, I wouldn't be able to argue against it. If you want me to site a half dozen quotes that directly contrast each other, I can, but do I really need to?

Yes. You do.
Do it now, please.

Because if you believe any of what you just said with that point I'm not sure I can reason with you any longer. I seriously can't comprehend anyone say anything you just said without layering their voice with a thick sheet of sarcasm.


*my
Besides, I presented that as fact. It was written by 55 authors over two thousand years. Moses figured out, again, how to wash hands and that bugs, raw meat, and seafood couldn't be eaten.
Why seafood?
Shellfish is poisonous during the summer months.
http://www.thekitchn.com/fact-or-fiction-following-the-120217





11. No, we can take just about any unstable isotope and easily determine the Earth is older than six thousand years. Not all of them can be used for the age of the universe, but most of them can tell you that it's way older than you're making it out to be. That means you either need to believe in the Bible or in carbon dating. And one of those sources is much more reliable than the other.


Honestly, none of them can be.
Whyever not, you may be asking?
Because we can only go off their own data with regard to their dates, with a few exceptions.
Take a mammoth.
We could say, hypothetically, we could carbon date it at 10K years.
If I said it wasn't 10K years, you would say you knew because carbon dating.
I'd say how do you know that carbon dating was accurate.
You'd say because you've carbon dated other things.
I'd say how do you know those were accurate.
And honestly, you can't!
Because you weren't there.





9. I know about the Tower of Babel, the Bible says nothing about what the humans spoke before then, Lucifer can speak just about any language, and the fact that you're now trying to tell me Adam had to name all animals that have ever existed in one day while simultaneously telling me it's impossible means you're proving my point for me that the Bible is fundamentally wrong.



I said it was before the fall. After the fall, it was impossible. I'm not actually shooting myself in the foot.
Maybe read my arguments fully next time?





3c. Well, yes, but you see, evidence-supported faith isn't faith. It's called logic. I sit on a chair because I probably wouldn't fall out of it because I haven't before, someone who doesn't worry about international issues is an idiot, and I don't need to pray to drive well when I know I can drive well. And having faith doesn't make you a sadist. Telling people that they need to believe everything you say with absolute certainty immediately and without any evidence and then giving them a set of strict rules before disappearing for two thousand years just to watch them squirm is very sadistic. And I don't accept the cross because it's not logical, so...?



First point.
Quote, "Faith is just another example of God being a sadist."
Please stop contradicting yourself. You're just proving my point.

Second point!
He didn't disappear for the last two thousand years.
There are honestly an awful lot of lucky coincidences/miracles in this world. You say luck (which is even less supported by science), I say God. "I didn't see anything all that special about Dunkirk. It was a battle. Some tactics were used. A lot of luck ended up involved." Quote, you.
Dunkirk was an example where God intervened.
Besides, he didn't hand off a set of strict laws.
He said "Believe in the cross and obey all authority except where it directly contradicts the Bible."
"28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30

Third point!
How not so?
He fulfilled over 100 prophecies to do so.
He took on all your sins, then washed them away.
He died and rose again.
Besides, you're missing something critical.

supernatural.
I honestly feel like you haven't ever read the Bible and are just tossing around stuff you've heard.





I didn't see anything all that special about Dunkirk. It was a battle. Some tactics were used. A lot of luck ended up involved.

Luck isn't definable by science.
I thought we were having a debate about God and science, not luck.
Geez, organize thyself.
Luck isn't a thing.
And if you disagree, then you're being illogical.
And we all know how you react to the illogical.
"Okay, and according to logic, if you can't argue something, you either learn so that you can argue it, or you relinquish your beliefs."

So, does luck exist or not?






As I said, Christians see things differently from everyone else. You see God. I see a thing that happened. You can't credit everything to God, because to do that, you first must consider what would have happened anyways, and then decide that that could not happen before divine intervention becomes possible.

Of course. And that's why I used Dunkirk.
Should Hitler have continued his troop movements, he would have crushed the entire expeditionary force. He decided to halt his land campaign, however, for inexplicable reasons.
Or God put pride in Hermann Goering's heart, and made him claim to Hitler that his Luftwaffe could do it all.
By all means, in fact, they should have been able to.
But they couldn't. The evacuation was successful. And that was a miracle.
Because they should have lost everybody.


A successful evacuation that wasn't supposed to be successful is not a miracle. A miracle would've been them winning that fight and not needing to evacuate at all.

Dude, anything is a miracle. If a chopper suffers a near-miss by a rocket, it's a miracle.
A miracle can be small. It doesn't need to be an amazing fluid motion where the chopper turns around and shoots fifty seven rockets at individual terrorist nests, wiping them all out Chuck Norris-style.
The evacuation was a miracle. But what you're proposing is even larger of a miracle.



You see, you're proving my point by pointing out a loss and saying that because there wasn't even more loss, God. That's not how things happen. It's another logical fallacy.

You're proving my point.
Small miracles and big miracles.
Besides, it's all part of his plan.
If the expeditionary force had won that battle and then made a charge for Berlin, then America wouldn't have needed to enter WWII, and America wouldn't be the only major superpower in the world right now.
God planned that out, m8.






Praying to God does not equal God existing, and people praying when their life is nearing a possible end is entirely due to desperation and fear of death, which is actually how the Bible gets its believers too! So thank you for explaining a wonderful reason why God doesn't really exist and how he was made up out of desperation. That, or that's another logical fallacy.




What? Why are you putting words in my mouth?
I was pointing out your logical fallacy! You were saying previously that devout atheists would never, ever make such a silly decision as to cry out to God! I pointed out your logical fallacy in saying that yes, yes they do.
"which is actually how the Bible gets its believers too!"
Evidence. Cite the evidence.
I find that much of the time, it's actually not that.
So please stop pointing out things that aren't true to try and back up your statement.



Right... but I did look? Didn't I just tell you how I was a devout Christian for the first twelve to thirteen years of my life and I truly believed everything the Bible said?


I'll just set that aside for now. I don't have anything to say to that.


"And how I came to this thread as part of my hope to either dispel God or find him again? That's not looking...?"


You never, ever, ever, ever, ever said that.
If you did, I'd like you to show me that.



Or are you just saying I'm wrong because you don't actually have anything to support God, so you're making an idiotic attempt to sound spiritual so that I will back down from my questioning?


:/
No.
I was just saying, you've said you asked a question to your pastor about your (probably sparse) readings. When the (human) pastor didn't answer to your satisfaction, you abandoned God.
That's not looking very hard, to be honest. At least try to not disprove yourself.



Ooh, thank you so much for saying that so I could quote it! You're now admitting to the very basic logic fallacy of over-complicating things. You see, we say "because it is" and then you say "because it is... because God".




Why does God need to be involved for it to make sense? You already told me your metaphysics for how God was created was wrong,


No.
I literally said he wasn't created.
Read what I write, please, before making claims.





Same, honestly. Though between the two of us, I don't know who has it tougher. The one trying to argue against logic or the one trying to explain how logic works.

Ikr.
Geez.
You just won't even read most of my arguments, instead citing nothing and claiming that I've been making logical fallacies that have been disproven.

You cited two things during this entire response.
Both of which I addressed.

Maybe we should look at your burden of proof?

Can you disprove God?




In addition, I'm gonna only make a few more posts.
I'm sensing a lot of hostility from you, and myself to be honest.
You certainly started out respectful, but at this point you're just growing agitated.
I'm definitely gonna wrap the debate up soon, be it as a (likely) draw.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Now your just speculating mate. I see no evidence or logic that that is the case.

That's literally how the theory of evolution works.
That, or there was no bacteria in that day and age, or the bacteria stopped evolving into better bacteria to wait for everything to catch up.

 

[Fable]

This topic is being locked as it has devolved from the original topic of the post.