From atheist to EX atheist . Hello.

[Ex Atheist]

Irreligious wrote

Nice, anthony. I'm not a person with a great deal of scientific acumen, but this makes sense to me. In my own haphazard way, I tried to explain this to Ex before, but he ignored it entirely. I suspect that is because he does not understand the concept. Admittedly, it's not nearly as easy to grasp as the idea of a superhuman creating very complex things through magic.

I suppose there is something about the various ancient mythologies, which often put a superhuman at the helm of creation, that is inherently appealing to our species' general tendencies toward narcissism.

I would guess that the reasoning goes: We are sentient and we create things. Therefore, we should assume that anything that is complex beyond what we could create ourselves, had to have been deliberately created by "something" quite like us, only more powerful and, obviously, elusive, since we can't really "know" what it was. Once we are grounded in that assumption, it is a fairly easy leap to assume that that "something" had to be sentient and possess a recognizable personality and a human-like "will."

It never seems to occur to the people who make these grand leaps of faith that, while it was once widely believed that a superhuman god directly controlled weather patterns and was personally responsible for, say, snow, scientifically-trained human beings actually know how it's done. And it's not done by magic but by [b]naturally[/ib occuring forces, which scientifically-trained human beings can reproduce under controlled circumstances.


Again, nice and entirely wasted on Ex. He will not allow this to make any sense to him, because it undercuts the mystery that allows him to project an elusive magic man onto these manipulations.






Personally, I would quarrel with the idea of referring to the natural forces that aligned to create us and all of nature as "accidental." To me, it's akin to calling an avalanche or a volcanic eruption accidental. It's just an inappropriate use of the word. An accident implies that there had to have been some other clear intent besides what actually came to be. Without evidence of any "conscious" intent behind what does exists, calling it "accidental" is just rank presumption.

You also need to study up on the Physics Constants for our Cosmos, Solar System, and Earth because these were necessary BEFORE Earth was here otherwise Earth couldnt have been here. Life didnt evolve to make these Physics Constants....that is so absurd a statement ! They are NEEDED so life can be supported on earth so they preceded life. Theres about 150 of them , theyve been accurately defined and a critical tolerance value has been assigned to each one, and they are ALL required to work in unison otherwise no earth and no us. Example : Prof. Hawkings and the Universe expansion rate at a 1/1,000,000 critical tolerance ; if it were any different earth wouldnt have been here. Multiply this by another 149 such precise Parameters and it makes atheism and humanism an absurd desperate excuse . Dont be stupid by saying the cosmos wasnt designed specifically for life or earth ; youre reinforcing your statement of 'there is no truth to atheism' . If there is no personal Theistic Creator for our Cosmos, then, StoneHenge in England could have arrived by natural causes too...yet no one would be that gulliable.

[Irreligious]

Ex Atheist wrote

Well, you ought to read up on the workings of a cell then otherwise youre going to be operating from ignorance . I have studied a cell by the way ; and you need to confess that for every design it requires a DESIGNER behind it.

You have not demonstrated that a cell needs a designer and I don't need to confess to any unfounded nonsense like that.

Ex Atheist wrote

If you dont think so, tell me an example of a clear design being brought into existence by a natural cause --- if you like, you may want to select a car engine, a basketball, a lawnmower, a simply bicycle , etc... for your illustration.

A basketball is not a naturally "designed" object, like, say, icicle formations or the rings inside the trunk of a tree, which are both "naturally occurring." A baketball, lawnmower or bicycle are objects that were designed specifically and very deliberately by humans beings from materials that already exist in nature.

Left to its own devices, it is unlikely that nature would "design" or "create" such things as basketballs, lawnmowers and bicycles on its own. Again, basketballs, lawnmowers, car engines, skyscrapers, matchsticks, nailclippers, etc., are not "naturally" occurring objects, like trees and grass or evolved animals, all of which, by the way, are also subject to human manipulation. We are designers, and deliberately so. There is no evidence that nature is.

[Ex Atheist]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

You don't have to block-quote, and then block-answer.

You can quote one question, answer it, then quote the next question and answer it.

Please do so from now on.


That was not my first question.

But no matter. Your assertion that we were not "True Christians" simply because we managed to see the fatal flaws in the Christian faith that you are still blinded to is absurd.


This line of reasoning (?) fails for reasons that I have already pointed out: namely, that not-believing does not afford nonbelievers the opportunity to do anything that believers do not do.

Believers lie, cheat, steal, and treat their fellow humans just as horribly as nonbelievers. Believers vastly outnumber nonbelievers in prisons, for instance. So tell me: what benefit is there to nonbelief over belief? What unrestrained fun times am I enjoying that your average drug-addicted, womanizing, lying, thieving Christian is not?

Because the fact remains: I live a more moral life than many Christians. So what have I gained by remaining true to myself and maintaining my skepticism in the face of your ridiculous assertions?

Answer this question before you ramble on any further.


That was my first question, not my second.

But no matter. If your creator is more complex than the universe, and you claim that the universe is too complex to have come about by chance, then your creator, by your own definition, must have been created. It is too complex to have come about by chance.

So tell me, Ex: what created your creator?


Are you suggesting that your all-powerful god-person cannot contact me directly, rather than through an intermediary? Are you suggesting that your omnipotent god-person can't do that?

Because any all-knowing being knows that I, personally, am not convinced by the claims of other people. It knows that nothing that you, Ex Atheist, say to me will convince me. It knows this because it is all-knowing. Because it is all-knowing, it also must know what will convince me, and because it is all-powerful, it must be able to do it.

So, you see, Ex, you are utterly irrelevant here.


This was my third question, not question "2.c."


Absolutely false.

Please refrain from telling other people what they do or do not know.


I begin personal relationships with people by meeting them, physically, in person.


I only know that someone on the internet is real because I have actual emails that were written by them that I can read and print out.

I don't have any documents written by your god-person to confirm its existence. I only have documents written by other people (mostly hateful people like you) who insist that it exists.

Your words do not convince me. I do not believe you, and you have no authority to demand that I believe you.


I have never begun a personal relationship by seeking someone out by faith, or by inviting someone into my heart.

That is not a personal relationship. It is an imaginary friend.

I had an imaginary friend when I was a child, back when I spoke as a child and thought as a child and acted as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Surely you recognize that passage.


This was my fourth question, not question "2.d."

If you propose to tell other people what is "real truth" -- if you, in fact, have a handbook of beliefs that "True Christians" must hold -- then you are part of a religion. Do not pretend that you have some kind of personal relationship with a magical god-person that you have to seek out in your imagination.


This was not a question I asked.


No you don't, and I don't care.


I don't desire to know the god-person that you specifically claim exists.

I wish that such a being did exist. But that is all it is: a wish. Until I see some kind of evidence that meets my standard of evidence -- and any all-knowing being must, by definition, know exactly what will meet that standard -- then I am under no obligation to acknowledge whatever super-fantastical beings you have conjured up in your imagination.

Do not tell me what your alleged god-person has put into anyone's heart. You may make no claims about your god-person until you have shown to my satisfaction that exists.

Show me evidence, not claims.


I will tell you this again, Ex, because you seem determined to ignore it.

I have read the Bible. Cover-to-cover. Repeatedly. I know it better than you do.

The letter written by the delusional Saul of Tarsus to the Romans does not convince me of anything. It proves only that Saul of Tarsus believed certain things, and that he wrote them down, and that he apparently convinced a couple of Romans to believe them as well. What he believed does not convince me any more than what you believe. It means only that you and he are equally delusional.


The heart is a blood-pump, Ex. It is not a sensory organ. Things do not "speak" to it.

It pumps blood through veins and capillaries. That is all.

If you cannot tell the difference between the heart -- a blood-pumping organ -- and the mind -- the collection of mental processes that constitutes a person's identity -- then you cannot tell me anything at all sensible about the world.


"Coming to" your alleged god-person requires that my mind already be "made up" that it exists.

You have not convinced me of that.

Stop making claims, Ex, and show me some evidence.


Your inability to number properly from one to four makes it impossible to determine which of my questions you don't understand.

Truly, though, you don't understand any of them. That much, at least, is self-evident.

Tony, Ill answer questions in whatever form i desire . You got your questions answered properly , consisely, and truthfully....so if they dont suit your fancy you can deal with it just like God who isnt going away because you dont want him to be real . Try to understand that as an alleged atheist, you are blinded to real truth so it appears as lies and false info to you when you get a conflicting answer to atheism --- this is accomplished by a powerful person called Satan who must keep you far from God , you have been duped into thinking that it is atheism that is science which it is not, and, you have personal lifestyle agendas/choices that you want to keep enforced without any interference or threat to them ...all of these things will hamper your ability to recognizing the real truth of many pertinent issues. I know, because it happened to me as an ex-atheist wannabe and its also happened to many other ex-atheist wannabes which ive interviewed. So please keep that in mind as we continue .

[nkb]

Ex Atheist wrote

Same for elephant dung found in your backyard....it screams out that a real elephant was there or at least another intelligent being had planted some there.

An alternate (and far more plausible) explanation would be that the half-wit known here as ExAtheist opened his mouth to deliver some of his usual verbal diarrhea.

[Ex Atheist]

Irreligious wrote

You have not demonstrated that a cell needs a designer and I don't need confess to any nonsense like that.



A basketball is not a "naturally" designed object, like, say, icicle formations or the rings inside the trunk of a tree, which are both "naturally" occurring. A baketball, lawnmower or bicycle are objects that were designed specifically and very deliberately by humans beings from materials that already exist in nature.

Left to its own devices, it is unlikely that nature would design such things as basketballs, lawnmowers and bicycles on its own.

Dig a little for how complex a cell is like Youtube. Dont expect me to spoon feed you...youre no longer a child . Put forth some effort and overcome apathy .

Which is more complex : A basketball or Planet Earth ?

[Ex Atheist]

nkb wrote

An alternate (and far more plausible) explanation would be that the half-wit known here as ExAtheist opened his mouth to deliver some of his usual verbal diarrhea.

Your immaturity obviously indicates that youre not suited for an indepth conversation on vital issues.

[Ex Atheist]

' We are designers. There is no evidence that nature is.'

REPLY: Very good...youre starting to better grasp Teleology now. So, if there is no evidence that Nature is a Designer for highly complex things....and there is great complexity for our Cosmos ...
then what do you suppose is responsible for it ?

Followup question : Is Nature capable of deliverying specified complexity such as informational instructions on HOW to build something , or, does something like that always require a Designer/Programmer ?

[Irreligious]

Ex Atheist wrote

Dig a little for how complex a cell is like Youtube. Dont expect me to spoon feed you...youre no longer a child . Put forth some effort and overcome apathy .

Which is more complex : A basketball or Planet Earth ?

It's not about complexity, you dolt. It's about the lack of evidence for a designer. There is no evidence that anyone designed a tree that was not otherwise manipulated through human intervention. Otherwise, trees occur naturally (and only on Earth, as far as we know) through the already complex forces of nature, just like mountains, streams, planets and constellations do, apparently.

[Irreligious]

Ex Atheist wrote

' We are designers. There is no evidence that nature is.'

REPLY: Very good...youre starting to better grasp Teleology now. So, if there is no evidence that Nature is a Designer for highly complex things....and there is great complexity for our Cosmos ...
then what do you suppose is responsible for it ?

You don't get to tell me that I cannot recognize the complexity of nature if I don't also acknowledge your nonexistent god. I fully recognize the complexity of nature. It's your god I don't recognize, because there is no evidence for it.

Ex Atheist wrote

Followup question : Is Nature capable of deliverying specified complexity such as informational instructions on HOW to build something , or, does something like that always require a Designer/Programmer ?

Nature is not sentient. It is a collection of forces that does what it does. Apparently, no designer was or is needed for nature to do what it does.

[anthonyjfuchs]

False Witness wrote

you have personal lifestyle agendas/choices that you want to keep enforced without any interference or threat to them

You seem obsessed with lie of yours. I have explained why it is absurd, and you refuse to answer my question, so this is the only point we will discuss from now on:

What lifestyle agenda or choice am I enforcing with my lack of belief? My faithful, monogamous relatioship with my wife? My heterosexuality? My aversion to drugs and alcohol?

What benefit am I getting from my atheism that your Christianity would deny me? I know many drug-addicted, cheating, lying Christians? Is my lack of belief preventing me from engaging in their drug-addicted, cheating, lying ways?

I'll take that trade. I'd prefer not to believe and to live the good, moral life that I'm living than to believe and do all of those horrible things.

[Davin]

Ex Atheist wrote

[...]and you need to confess that[ ]every design[ ]requires a [designer.][...]

I totally agree, every design requires a designer. I'm sure you have the designs that date to before man even existed that shows that stuff in nature and humans were designed. For clarification: a house is not a design, the blue prints are. A car is not a design, a bike is not a design, a tree is not a design, toast is not a design... etc..

Ex Atheist wrote

You also need to study up on the [p]hysic[al] [c]onstants for our [c]osmos, [s]olar [s]ystem, and Earth because these were necessary [before] Earth was here otherwise Earth couldn[']t have been here. Life didn[']t evolve to make these [p]hysic[al] [c]onstants[... ]that is [such an] absurd[ ]statement[]!

That is an absurd statement, it's a good thing no here has, is or will make such a claim.

Ex Atheist wrote

They are [needed] so life can be supported on earth so they preceded life. There[']s about 150 of them[], they[']ve been accurately defined and a critical tolerance value has been assigned to each one[...]

No, a critical tolerance value has not been assigned to each one, this is an absurd claim to make. At most we have found what the critical tolerance values are, but it's not like some scientist is making up numbers then nature follows.

Ex Atheist wrote

[...]and they are [all] required to work in unison otherwise no [E]arth and no us. Example[]: Prof. [Hawking] and the [u]niverse expansion rate at a [10^-6] critical tolerance[]; if it were any different [E]arth wouldn[']t have been here. Multiply this by another 149 such precise [p]arameters and it makes atheism and humanism an absurd desperate excuse[.] Don[']t be stupid by saying the cosmos [weren't] designed specifically for life or [E]arth[]; you[']re reinforcing your statement of 'there is no truth to atheism'[]. If there is no personal [t]heistic [c]reator for our [c]osmos, then, Stone[ ]Henge in England could have arrived by natural causes too...[ ]yet no one would be that [gullible].

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the qualifier, "as we know it" because it seems that you miss this qualifier when it's placed just after "life." Just in case you can't figure this out on your own: life not being as we know it, is also a possibility. Life as we knew it could not survive without oxygen, but life as we know it can survive without oxygen. Your problem is that your mind is closed to the possibility that life could have been very different than we know it, change some factors and humans may not have been able to survive, but some other forms of life probably would have.

You're so messed up and close minded that even when you attempt to see another point of view of life, you maintain most of your own, here are a few examples:

"Life didnt evolve to make these Physics Constants" This is you limiting your perspective to the idea that physical constants must have been designed instead of any other possibility. What most people will say is that life evolved to the physical constants. I like the puddle analogy by Douglas Adams: where the water thinks that the hole was designed for it because the hole fits the shape of the water so perfectly.

"If you dont think so, tell me an example of a clear design being brought into existence by a natural cause" is you limiting the idea that everything that exists must have been designed. There are natural explanations for how trees, animals and even worlds formed that as of yet require no supernatural intervention to be possible. However no one has found a single blue print, mock up, design sketch... etc. that predates life that shows that life was designed.

[Ex Atheist]

Irreligious wrote

It's not about complexity, you dolt. It's about the lack of evidence for a designer. There is no evidence that anyone designed a tree that was not otherwise manipulated through human intervention. Otherwise, trees occur naturally (and only on Earth, as far as we know) through the already complex forces of nature, just like mountains, streams, planets and constellations do, apparently.

Does a basketball require a Designer/Creator ? Whats the chance that if all the raw materials were there and someone tossed a stick of dynamite on the materials...that the explosion would make a fully functioning basketball given, say, a million years ?

[Ex Atheist]

Irreligious wrote

You don't get to tell me that I cannot recognize the complexity of nature if I don't also acknowledge your nonexistent god. I fully recognize the complexity of nature. It's your god I don't recognize, because there is no evidence for it.


Nature is not sentient. It is a collection of forces that does what it does. Apparently, no designer was or is needed for nature to do what it does.

WHY is God 'non existant' ? Because natural causes (nature of blind , non intelligent forces) are capable of producing highly complex designed things ? How did Nature blindly and accidentally provide the first life on earth which atheist scientists have calculated at a probability of 10 to the 40,000 th power taking into account what is required ?

[Ex Atheist]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

You seem obsessed with lie of yours. I have explained why it is absurd, and you refuse to answer my question, so this is the only point we will discuss from now on:

What lifestyle agenda or choice am I enforcing with my lack of belief? My faithful, monogamous relatioship with my wife? My heterosexuality? My aversion to drugs and alcohol?

What benefit am I getting from my atheism that your Christianity would deny me? I know many drug-addicted, cheating, lying Christians? Is my lack of belief preventing me from engaging in their drug-addicted, cheating, lying ways?

I'll take that trade. I'd prefer not to believe and to live the good, moral life that I'm living than to believe and do all of those horrible things.

The lifestyle choices that come with the atheist construct of NO absolute moral laws to be governed by. Because you dont want God to exist you then have the option to excersise whatever YOU deem as permissable . Why limit your gratification if no ultimate moral culpability (God) doesnt exist ? Theres also no need for there to be anyone more important than yourself which is often a springboard to narcissism and mazimized hedonism as relentlessly promoted by our Media and Culture. Hope that helps.

[Sternwallow]

Ex Atheist wrote

If you dont[sic] see evidence for a personal creator , then what is the evidence for rocks, dirt, and hydrogen gas giving us what we have ?

The evidence for rocks, dirt and hydrogen is that they exist and that is not evidence about how or why they were created. In fact, rocks and dirt were not created, they are rearrangements of pre-existing material. Only most of the hydrogen and helium in the universe were created from raw energy, shortly after the Big Bang cooled enough to permit stable nuclei; the rest of the elements were formed in stars and gathered by ordinary gravity. You, yourself are made almost entirely of star stuff and roughly 90% of your mass resides in the vast emptiness of the empty space within you.

A question such as yours is not an argument in favor of your position. It is a dishonest insinuation that your position is true without giving evidence that it is so.

"What does the existence of brimstone mean if not that Satan needs it to stoke the fires of Hell?" See? It is a stupid leading question.