God exists.. Read and learn.

[Choobus]

YHWH wrote

Intelligent life cannot, and will not arise from a nonintelligent source. It's just not possible.

At least you won't be having any kids then, dumbass.

..And if you believe the Universe is eternal. Then you are disagreeing with modern science. Science believes the Universe came into existence roughly 14 Billion years ago.

You may want to rephrase that to mean current scientific thought. Science will adjust when new evidence is found. The church is stuck in a 2000 year rut....ignorance breeds ignorance.

[nkb]

Could he have crammed more strawmen into his first post of this thread if he had tried?

[Choobus]

could he have crammed more.....


oh never mind. Fucking trolls/theists, I grow weary of their foolishness.

[Irreligious]

*Sigh*

So soon after Knupfer's involuntary departure, and we must endure this all over again?

Man, the chew toys are gettin' stale around here: Totally lacking in originality, nuance or apparent charm. Just the same ol' moth-eaten, dog-eared doggerel diatribe delivered in the same crazed, condescending manner. Do they actually clone them somewhere?

Eh. At least, this one doesn't wink and scowl. So far.

YHWH wrote

For centuries the minority of mankind has made the statement that "There is no God" or "God does not exist." The only way this statement could be true is unless the human mind was omniscient. Just in case some of you are not aware of what omniscient means. It means "All Knowing," Being capable of having complete and total knowledge of the entire universe.
In order for any human being to say with sheer confidence that "God does not exist," you would have to explore every square inch of this enormous universe and we all know that is totally impossible for the simple fact that many scientists believe the universe is infinite. (Never-Ending.)
No matter how much you may think there is no God during your short stay here on planet earth.. You will never know for sure until you die.
This is why I declare atheism as nothing more but a religious opinion. I can accept scepticism before atheism.
Now in the Christian defense. We believe in God and we say there is a God because we have spiritual faith.
We put our faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. I declare the creation of this massive universe and the creation of intelligent human life to be the evidence of an intelligent creator.
Intelligent human life did not arise from a non-intelligent source. That is totally impossible. Here's how I got there..
Human life is far too complex to have evolved from nothing. It’s a scientific fact that Something cannot come from nothing. The proper scientific term for this is, “From nothing comes nothing.” The universe is not eternal. That has been proven. Science estimates the universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. And for all of you people out there that believe the universe is eternal. My question to you would be. "If the universe is eternal.. at which point did it start expanding?" The sun was placed at a “Just right” distance from the earth perfectly suitable for human life. If the sun were any further away, we would freeze to death. Life would have never begun. If we did not have a moon, all water on earth would not flow, causing the water to become stagnant. Not suitable for human consumption. Skeptics do not call this “Intelligent design,” They like to refer to this as “Happened by sheer chance,” I say, Highly unlikely. If the Big bang were true. We all know that a massive explosion cannot put itself into order. An explosion causes massive destruction and total disorder. It does not create a useful structure or a finely tuned mechanism. For example, set off a massive bomb in a junk yard and let’s see if you can produce a running automobile with all of it's parts in perfect working order to keep the automobile running.
Or a better example, set off a bomb in a library and let's see if it puts together an 1800 page book giving detailed information from beginning to end.

Alright sir, seeing as how i just finished half a bottle of rum and am in an exceedingly jovial mood, i thought i might as well attempt to address this here wall of text, seeing as how most other people on this forum have addressed similar posts in the past, and i might have more patience then the rest of them.

I disagree with your first statement sir, one does not have to be omniscient in order to decide if there is no god. Sure there could be a god, but as of yet there has not been any overwhelming evidence that there is one god or another. Just as you can say there is no Roman, Greek, or Norse pantheon, so to do we say that there is no Christian god, because we have yet to encounter a significant amount or suitable evidence in order to determine as such, that includes the bible, seeing as how a good portion of it doesn't stand up to scholarly review. And as you said, just as there is no way for us to tell if there is a god until we die, so too is there no way for you to see if there is a Christian god until you die. Who knows, maybe you'll encounter a Norseman throwing you out of Valhalla because you were not an honorable warrior in life.

As for your Christian defense of "believe in God and we say there is a God because we have spiritual faith. We put our faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ." Why is it that your faith is placed, in your opinion, well? As of now, there is significant debate in quite a few historical arenas about whether Jesus even existed or not, and as Cal put for quite a bit Jesus could have been Caesar. So, how is it you have faith in something that quite a few people of late are unsure of? While you may take the approach many people have in saying that faith, especially unquestioning faith, shows true devotion, quite a few others, including myself, believe that this position is nothing but known ignorance, in that you know there are other opinions but you choose to ignore them, even if they have evidence behind them.

On too your belief that existence is proof of a creator. Once again, can you offer proof? The only proof i have seen thus far presented by most theists is the bible, and once again, with the bible yet to be proven to be true, what evidence is there that there is a heavenly creator, going even further to a restrict it to a judeo Christian creator of the sect that you strictly adhere too?

Your saying that we "Human life is far too complex to have evolved from nothing." not only shows your complete lack of knowledge of abiogenesis, but a complete ignorance of evolutionary theory in general. (Sorry if i sound belligerent, but this post has taken a lot longer to write then i expected, as well as an apology to the other atheists if my information is incorrect, please feel free to correct me, i always want to learn from my mistakes, be them drunken or otherwise.)

I always find it funny when Christians ask "if the universe is eternal, what created the universe?", when they fail to answer the same question when posed as "if god has always existed the what created god?".

As for the "perfect amount away from the sun etc, etc, etc" argument, i like to think of 3001 the final odyssey, the different planets of our solar system have a chance for life, but each in a different way, some rely on the heat produced by the core of the planet, other simply live below the frozen surface, etc, etc, so there are different theoretical ways in which life can thrive on a planet, but since we have been unable to study life on others planets, then the point is moot.

As a water technology major, i find something of a fault in your "If we did not have a moon, all water on earth would not flow, causing the water to become stagnant. Not suitable for human consumption." point. There are many things to consider when thinking of the amount of Dissolved oxygen in water, some of them are temperature, PH, and the amount of living organisms present in water. And an additional point from my brother, the tides don't necessarily cause the ocean to churn and receive more oxygen, that would be up to other factors, such as the winds, storms, etc. And finally, and i only write this in caps because it is my major in school right now, and your previous statements on water have upset me, WHAT IMPORTANCE DOES OCEAN WATER HAVE WHEN HUMANS ONLY CONSUME BODIES OR WATER THAT TIDES HAVE LITTLE OR NO INFLUENCE ON? IN THE MOST EASTERN AND WESTERN PORTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES "for example" PEOPLE GET MOST OF THEIR WATER FROM RIVERS AND ON RARE OCCASIONS LAKES, WHILE PEOPLE MORE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE UNITED STATES GET THEIR WATER FROM AQUIFERS THAT ARE NOT EFFECTED AT ALL BY THE TIDES. (once again sorry if that sounded belligerent, I'm getting tired of writing this, and i've had over half a bottle of cheap rum by now.)

Skeptics saying "sheer chance" seems far more reasonable then what you are proposing. Saying that this planet has the strict conditions for life to spring up on it in an ALMOST INFINITE UNIVERSE is highly more probably then "in a universe that is completely vast and varied, a god that has not chosen to show himself to us, but instead to a lower version of us that were not only nomads, but most didn't, for the most part, have a written language, in only a certain part of the world and no other, and created a book that is only proven by itself, and somehow, magically remained unchanged throughout the years, no matter how many languages it has been translated into".... sorry, lost my train of thought, but i hope you see what i was trying to say, that it's more likely that we sprung up by chance in an increadably vast universe, then by your one god, and no other deciding, "hey, I'm bored, I'm gonna make a universe were the only goal is to suck my cock, and try to persuade people of my existence by never showing myself to anyone of any worth".

Further more, your quote "If the Big bang were true. We all know that a massive explosion cannot put itself into order. An explosion causes massive destruction and total disorder. It does not create a useful structure or a finely tuned mechanism." is insulting once again. The big bang includes quite a few more principles and ideas then a simple "big explosion" (string theory anyone?), so, simply defining it as such is like saying that light bulbs are Thor's lightening somehow caught in a jar. Not only is it simplistic, it's so simplistic that it is utterly incorrect. I won't even try to explain the big bang, because A. I'm drunk, and B. my understanding of it would probably do it no justice.

Please, please, please, don't try to thrust these idiot "way of the master" examples as valid arguments. I had to argue them with a creationist biology teacher in the 8th grade, and if you really want me to present my 8th grade argument, i will grudgingly do so, but other wise, know they are quite stupid and simplistic.

Other than that, yeah, please feel free to correct my points any of my atheistic peers, later.

Was gonna post more of an apology for my lack of knowledge, but i ran out of pace, damn you 10,000 character limit. Night all.

[Smellyoldgit]

Where do we find these fucking wankpots from?

He/she/it posted similar drivel here

[Sternwallow]

YHWH wrote

Ah! I see you're unlearned about the Bible. Well, Start reading the Book of Timothy. He tells us that God is eternal.. and God was taking actions before the beginning of time.

Timothy was a stupid peasant, then, wasn't he? Can you really think that anything happened before the beginning of time? Your conception that time is somehow embedded in itself demands some evidence or theoretical justification, otherwise, it is just noise.

Meanwhile, the Bible or any book cannot be used to validate or justify itself. So, until you (theists) provide some evidence corroborating the specific Bible part that you are discussing, your claims about the Bible are just noise.

More basically, do not pretend to know things that you have only on faith. Faith is not your friend and it is not a virtue. Don't claim to know things that no human can know, like the mind of a non-existent god.

[Sternwallow]

trailmix wrote

God exists because the bible says so. End of story.

End of sanity. End of rationality. End of useful discussion.

[Sternwallow]

trailmix wrote

That's my point ghoul. The unfortunate part of my statement is the large percentage of christians that will argue god exists based on that premise alone.

They will be thoughtless cranks, useless in any discussion, serious or not, then, won't they?

YHWH wrote

The Bible says "God is eternal".. God can not be created or destroyed. Maybe the Ancient Jews were praising Energy/Matter?

Bible is not proof. Otherwise you have to believe the Koran is true because IT says so. Fail.

..And if you believe the Universe is eternal.

No one said it was eternal. Straw man argument. Fail.

Then you are disagreeing with modern science. Science believes the Universe came into existence roughly 14 Billion years ago.

Intelligent life cannot, and will not arise from a nonintelligent source. It's just not possible. Do you honestly believe intelligence came from nothing by nothing, and nothing caused it to happen?

The Library and Junk Yard is a prime example of what most people believe about the "Big Bang".. We know an explosion will not create a useful structure. Not possible.. Unless a supreme being is involved. How can an explosion cause everything to go into order? Do you think this all happened by some random chaotic event?

No, that is one of the most retarded examples of thick minded fundy retardation. This proves that you haven't a clue what the ToE entails, so you attatch false premises to it and call it wrong. FAIL.


.. Oh, and for my encore.. Timothy gained his knowledge about God through God.. Because the Bible is inspired by none other than God.

Encore must be french for "Turd on a shit sandwich".

So Tim learned from god... about god, because the god of the bible (where the story is located) said it was true?
Are you really that stupid?

HolyHeretic wrote

Alright sir, seeing as how i just finished half a bottle of rum and am in an exceedingly jovial mood, i thought i might as well attempt to address this here wall of text, seeing as how most other people on this forum have addressed similar posts in the past, and i might have more patience then the rest of them.

I disagree with your first statement sir, one does not have to be omniscient in order to decide if there is no god. Sure there could be a god, but as of yet there has not been any overwhelming evidence that there is one god or another. Just as you can say there is no Roman, Greek, or Norse pantheon, so to do we say that there is no Christian god, because we have yet to encounter a significant amount or suitable evidence in order to determine as such, that includes the bible, seeing as how a good portion of it doesn't stand up to scholarly review. And as you said, just as there is no way for us to tell if there is a god until we die, so too is there no way for you to see if there is a Christian god until you die. Who knows, maybe you'll encounter a Norseman throwing you out of Valhalla because you were not an honorable warrior in life.

As for your Christian defense of "believe in God and we say there is a God because we have spiritual faith. We put our faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ." Why is it that your faith is placed, in your opinion, well? As of now, there is significant debate in quite a few historical arenas about whether Jesus even existed or not, and as Cal put for quite a bit Jesus could have been Caesar. So, how is it you have faith in something that quite a few people of late are unsure of? While you may take the approach many people have in saying that faith, especially unquestioning faith, shows true devotion, quite a few others, including myself, believe that this position is nothing but known ignorance, in that you know there are other opinions but you choose to ignore them, even if they have evidence behind them.

On too your belief that existence is proof of a creator. Once again, can you offer proof? The only proof i have seen thus far presented by most theists is the bible, and once again, with the bible yet to be proven to be true, what evidence is there that there is a heavenly creator, going even further to a restrict it to a judeo Christian creator of the sect that you strictly adhere too?

Your saying that we "Human life is far too complex to have evolved from nothing." not only shows your complete lack of knowledge of abiogenesis, but a complete ignorance of evolutionary theory in general. (Sorry if i sound belligerent, but this post has taken a lot longer to write then i expected, as well as an apology to the other atheists if my information is incorrect, please feel free to correct me, i always want to learn from my mistakes, be them drunken or otherwise.)

I always find it funny when Christians ask "if the universe is eternal, what created the universe?", when they fail to answer the same question when posed as "if god has always existed the what created god?".

As for the "perfect amount away from the sun etc, etc, etc" argument, i like to think of 3001 the final odyssey, the different planets of our solar system have a chance for life, but each in a different way, some rely on the heat produced by the core of the planet, other simply live below the frozen surface, etc, etc, so there are different theoretical ways in which life can thrive on a planet, but since we have been unable to study life on others planets, then the point is moot.

As a water technology major, i find something of a fault in your "If we did not have a moon, all water on earth would not flow, causing the water to become stagnant. Not suitable for human consumption." point. There are many things to consider when thinking of the amount of Dissolved oxygen in water, some of them are temperature, PH, and the amount of living organisms present in water. And an additional point from my brother, the tides don't necessarily cause the ocean to churn and receive more oxygen, that would be up to other factors, such as the winds, storms, etc. And finally, and i only write this in caps because it is my major in school right now, and your previous statements on water have upset me, WHAT IMPORTANCE DOES OCEAN WATER HAVE WHEN HUMANS ONLY CONSUME BODIES OR WATER THAT TIDES HAVE LITTLE OR NO INFLUENCE ON? IN THE MOST EASTERN AND WESTERN PORTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES "for example" PEOPLE GET MOST OF THEIR WATER FROM RIVERS AND ON RARE OCCASIONS LAKES, WHILE PEOPLE MORE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE UNITED STATES GET THEIR WATER FROM AQUIFERS THAT ARE NOT EFFECTED AT ALL BY THE TIDES. (once again sorry if that sounded belligerent, I'm getting tired of writing this, and i've had over half a bottle of cheap rum by now.)

Skeptics saying "sheer chance" seems far more reasonable then what you are proposing. Saying that this planet has the strict conditions for life to spring up on it in an ALMOST INFINITE UNIVERSE is highly more probably then "in a universe that is completely vast and varied, a god that has not chosen to show himself to us, but instead to a lower version of us that were not only nomads, but most didn't, for the most part, have a written language, in only a certain part of the world and no other, and created a book that is only proven by itself, and somehow, magically remained unchanged throughout the years, no matter how many languages it has been translated into".... sorry, lost my train of thought, but i hope you see what i was trying to say, that it's more likely that we sprung up by chance in an increadably vast universe, then by your one god, and no other deciding, "hey, I'm bored, I'm gonna make a universe were the only goal is to suck my cock, and try to persuade people of my existence by never showing myself to anyone of any worth".

Further more, your quote "If the Big bang were true. We all know that a massive explosion cannot put itself into order. An explosion causes massive destruction and total disorder. It does not create a useful structure or a finely tuned mechanism." is insulting once again. The big bang includes quite a few more principles and ideas then a simple "big explosion" (string theory anyone?), so, simply defining it as such is like saying that light bulbs are Thor's lightening somehow caught in a jar. Not only is it simplistic, it's so simplistic that it is utterly incorrect. I won't even try to explain the big bang, because A. I'm drunk, and B. my understanding of it would probably do it no justice.

Please, please, please, don't try to thrust these idiot "way of the master" examples as valid arguments. I had to argue them with a creationist biology teacher in the 8th grade, and if you really want me to present my 8th grade argument, i will grudgingly do so, but other wise, know they are quite stupid and simplistic.

Other than that, yeah, please feel free to correct my points any of my atheistic peers, later.

Still, if we want any details about Jesus’s life and teachings, we must turn to the New Testament. Extra-biblical sources confirm what we read in the gospels, but they don’t really tell us anything new. The question then must be: how historically reliable are the New Testament documents?

Burden of Proof;

Here we confront the very crucial question of the burden of proof. Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? Are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Sceptical scholars almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. I’m not exaggerating here: this really is the procedure of sceptical critics.
But I want to list five reasons why I think we ought to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong:

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.

5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.

More evidence of Jesus;
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/e...-for-jesus.htm

Have a wonderful day!!
If you have any questions.. Please email me.

Then isn't it interesting how the gospels are so similar as to be obviously copied from each other, and yet still manages to contridict itself. FOUR MEASELY BOOKS? Nearly identical and written about from the point of view as to give away that the author wasn't actually present to witness the "events" firsthand. THAT'S reliable to you? Jesus was so great, that there are multiple stories about his birth and his death, and hardly a word about him for the first thirty years of his life. Gee, he sounds REAL important, huh?

Even the bible hardly hints at the life he should've led. And in those books he comes off as lazy, poor, parroting other prophets and adages, he was angry, jealous, contradictory, insane, a liar, a coward and a jerk. And that's IF you believe he existed.

2.5% of the human population can't comprehend what they read.. We call these people atheist.

Bzzzt! That number is 10-15% and rising bub. If you expect to be taken seriously don't try to fuck with us on the numbers. We ARE atheists, many of us know that your number is a barefaced lie.