The religion of Athiesm - utterly illogical - utterly evil

[sans_Delilah]

On the contrary, the burden of proof is souly in your corner, for it was more common to believe in God then it was not through the ages. It is in fact them that are bringing something different onto the table here.

Being that we’re alive post-Scientific Revolution, I am still not forced to prove a negative.

In most cases the lack of proof on either side would result in a meaningless issue. Unfortunately, many people believe strongly in your perspective.

As you cannot proof the positive existence of God, I am not required to prove that he doesn’t for the default scientific conclusion to be his non-existence.

 

[prodigalson12]

Being that we’re alive post-Scientific Revolution, I am still not forced to prove a negative.

In most cases the lack of proof on either side would result in a meaningless issue. Unfortunately, many people believe strongly in your perspective.

As you cannot proof the positive existence of God, I am not required to prove that he doesn’t for the default scientific conclusion to be his non-existence.

It is again, if you read in an earlier thread, I explained, you lack the faculties to understand the evidence, thus a biased and flawed perspective which contradicts standard scientific protocol. I can understand both at once, you can only understand one, I can’t make it any more clear. It is again though, clearly your sources began with something in this modern age, against what we held dear through the ages. My belief stands the test of time, yours has not.

 

[prodigalson12]

prodigalson 12, amigo, friend, buddy, give it up.
When you show me your God I’ll show you mine.

bible.org/seriespage/ineffectual-prayers-baal-priests-1-kings-1823-29

Here is a comprehensive resource that you can draw upon to answer that question. Be sure to read through all of 1 Kings 18:23-29 before you get back to me on this one. You don’t know what you are asking, honestly, you don’t.

 

[MrZetterlund]

You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll repeat it: What about this universe indicates that a god is responsible for it?

Astronomers found a body af stars that spelled out in Classic Hebrew “GOD WAS HERE”
(-jk, of course) Back then people would make up gods to explain everything in nature. The point of making the Genesis account of creation was to show the Isrealites that all these different phenomenas are just apart of His creation. PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO.
youtube.com/watch?v=dfDdbxMKZRw

 

[robsully]

Hey prodigalson12 great read, it had me shaking, quivering, but then I realized it was only gas.
So your proof is a story? Well I meet your story and raise you tale. If you would go to the Holy Book of Waqu book BMF chapter 4 verse 112 Where is states “Prodigalson12 came up short once again.”

We are still kidding around, right?

 

[MrZetterlund]

You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll repeat it: What about this universe indicates that a god is responsible for it?

Oh MAN! I just hit the jackpot to this question!
Check THIS out! thefirmament.org/

 

[raqrodriguez]

Oh MAN! I just hit the jackpot to this question!
Check THIS out! thefirmament.org/

I thank you for this.

 

[prodigalson12]

I thank you for this.

ditto

 

[benedictus2]

Point 3: Atheism is a position on a question, not a worldview or an all-encompassing philosophy. Each individual atheist is free to subscribe to the moral philosophy that he or she sees as most true. I personally – and I seem to be in the minority of atheists – am a moral nihilist. I don’t think that the terms “good” and “evil” are inherent to things, but labels we add to things that mean nothing more than “I like it” or “I don’t like it.”

Catholics do not believe “things” have an inherent morality either. As Catholics, we believe what Genesis said ': God saw all creation and saw that it was good.
Morality does not pertain to things but to actions. In which case, “I like it” and “I don’t like it” do not suffice because paedophiles like to have sex with children and mass murderers love to kill.

Point 4: It’s almost too easy to cite countries with high populations of nonbelievers or nonreligious people and point out how they have less crime.

Correlation would not be that easily established. You have to also cite by which group these crimes are being commited by. Do their economic status have anything to do with a crime, etc, etc.

Your conclusions would be erroneous and over simplistic unless you take into account other factors.

Having said that, do give examples since as you said it is TOO easy.

Being “open minded” doesn’t mean accepting every position you hear of. It means being open to evidence for positions. There’s no evidence that any gods exist. It’s not “limited” to not consider positions for which there is no evidence whatsoever (except for really bad evidence, like strong internal feelings).

Only if you limit knowledge to the scientific realm. Not everything knowable is knowable only through empirical proof.

Point 8: I can only speak for myself, but I come here because I find talking about this kind of stuff fun.

I am glad you are here.

Also, it can help when I’m thinking a subject through to have people pose counterarguments that I never would have thought of on my own.

Exactly the same reason why I think your presence here is valuable.

Point 9: Well, I would prefer “mindful beasts.” We humans, all of us, certainly are animals – that’s a fact, not a question in dispute – but we have more advanced brain functions than our fellow animals. That’s why we can figure out what photosynthesis is, for example.

The intellect is not the only function that separates the man from the beast.

It is also absolutely true that things that cannot be measured or analyzed in some way do not “exist” in any sense of the word “exist” that is any useful.

Only in a utilitarian view of the world. Not all ideas can be translated into anything material enough to be with measured. Freedom, love, integrity, etc, etc are not empirically measurable.

The word “exist” – if it means anything at all – means to manifest in a way that exhibits properties that can be observed in some fashion.

Only by scientific definition. Science is not the only way by which we apprehend reality.

Things that don’t manifest in an observable way aren’t “things” that all – they don’t exist.

True, things that are not observable are not things at all. We never ever said that God is a thing.

 

[sans_Delilah]

Oh MAN! I just hit the jackpot to this question!
Check THIS out! thefirmament.org/

No disrespect meant, but the case that video makes is discounted by the fact that the entirety of its argument is based on flawed measurements.

This measurement of the cubit that is posited is mere conjecture, as it is merely guessed that the cubit is a forearm and a hand, being 24 inches.

First of all, there is wide diversity in size among humans, and everyone’s forearm is most certainly not eighteen inches long.

Not only that, anthropologists tell us that humans were much smaller in biblical times.

We need only look to surviving medieval suits of armor to determine our relative size to people of THAT area, and the evidence suggests that the difference was quite significant, leaving us today significantly larger than they were.

Therefore, it would be almost impossible for us to determine the factual length of a biblical cubit, and therefore the measurements of the Ark.

Also, though this is a weaker point, the diameter of the Sun is a matter of scholarly debate, estimates running from 864,000 miles to 890,000 miles.

Both of these points indicate that the arguments in that video are fallacious.

I respect your effort and dedication however.

 

[benedictus2]

You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll repeat it: What about this universe indicates that a god is responsible for it?

Have you every heard of the Uncaused Cause proof for the existence of God?

Also, the universe is so ordered that to think that we are here by chance requires more faith than to believe that an Omnipotent Being created it.

Here is an oversimplification: Do you think if you leave the part of your PC in a box allowed it to rattle about for several million years at the end of that time you will have a fully functioning computer?

 

[benedictus2]

Not because I fear going to Hell, but because I believe that everyone has a right to live, just as I would expect to.

Which is more noble?

Not killing for fear of Hell, or not killing JUST because it’s the right thing to do?

Why is it the right thing to do?

 

[benedictus2]

Both of these points indicate that the arguments in that video are fallacious.

I respect your effort and dedication however.

Here is a quick proof

and this one

 

[MrZetterlund]

No disrespect meant, but the case that video makes is discounted by the fact that the entirety of its argument is based on flawed measurements.

This measurement of the cubit that is posited is mere conjecture, as it is merely guessed that the cubit is a forearm and a hand, being 24 inches.

First of all, there is wide diversity in size among humans, and everyone’s forearm is most certainly not eighteen inches long.

Not only that, anthropologists tell us that humans were much smaller in biblical times.

We need only look to surviving medieval suits of armor to determine our relative size to people of THAT area, and the evidence suggests that the difference was quite significant, leaving us today significantly larger than they were.

Therefore, it would be almost impossible for us to determine the factual length of a biblical cubit, and therefore the measurements of the Ark.

Also, though this is a weaker point, the diameter of the Sun is a matter of scholarly debate, estimates running from 864,000 miles to 890,000 miles.

Both of these points indicate that the arguments in that video are fallacious.

I respect your effort and dedication however.

Sorry, dude. I can uphold my arguments.
“We need only look to surviving medieval suits of armor to determine our relative size to people of THAT area, and the evidence suggests that the difference was quite significant, leaving us today significantly larger than they were.”
In other words, they where probably as tall as I am. (I’m sixteen) Which is five foot nine. It was unusual for someone back then to reach at least six feet tall. I have tape measurer sitting right beside me coincidentally. My arm measures two centimeters over eighteen inches. And coincidentally, the measure of a cubit that scholars agree on matches so much of this information. P.S. You can actually determine the size of the Ark thanks to this discovery in the mountain of Ararat:

youtube.com/watch?v=2Y5ORpMTebI

 

[abucs]

Being that we’re alive post-Scientific Revolution, I am still not forced to prove a negative.

In most cases the lack of proof on either side would result in a meaningless issue. Unfortunately, many people believe strongly in your perspective.

As you cannot proof the positive existence of God, I am not required to prove that he doesn’t for the default scientific conclusion to be his non-existence.

With respect i don’t think this is quite true. If for example i asked you to prove the Universe came into being by non intelligent means the answer is that you can’t. It is not then proper logic to say that the opposite is true, that is, that an intelligent beginning is the scientific default.

 

[sans_Delilah]

Sorry, dude. I can uphold my arguments.
“We need only look to surviving medieval suits of armor to determine our relative size to people of THAT area, and the evidence suggests that the difference was quite significant, leaving us today significantly larger than they were.”
In other words, they where probably as tall as I am. (I’m sixteen) Which is five foot nine. It was unusual for someone back then to reach at least six feet tall. I have tape measurer sitting right beside me coincidentally. My arm measures two centimeters over eighteen inches. And coincidentally, the measure of a cubit that scholars agree on matches so much of this information. P.S. You can actually determine the size of the Ark thanks to this discovery in the mountain of Ararat:

youtube.com/watch?v=2Y5ORpMTebI

Jackpot:
Jewish cubits change length through the history of the Jewish people, being different during the first and second Temple periods, varying from 16.85 inches to 17.5 inches. Neither of which are 24 inches.

And there is no definitive evidence that the Ararat anomaly is anything other than a natural formation.

With respect i don’t think this is quite true. If for example i asked you to prove the Universe came into being by non intelligent means the answer is that you can’t. It is not then proper logic to say that the opposite is true, that is, that an intelligent beginning is the scientific default.

No no.

The scientific default is skepticism.

Therefore, if something can be proven neither to exist or not to exist, the scientific default position is that it doesn’t, pending proof either way.

The question I used to illustrate my point was not whether the Universe was designed by intelligent means, but whether “God” exists.

It is again, if you read in an earlier thread, I explained, you lack the faculties to understand the evidence, thus a biased and flawed perspective which contradicts standard scientific protocol. I can understand both at once, you can only understand one, I can’t make it any more clear. It is again though, clearly your sources began with something in this modern age, against what we held dear through the ages. My belief stands the test of time, yours has not.

There is no more fallacious of an argument than to tell your opponent that they are simply inherently unable to understand the evidence. I am just as capable as any other intelligent human to objectively examine evidence.

You have effectively just told me that you’re right because I’m stupid.

I have ceased to regard you as a person with whom I can debate, as you continually resort to childish tactics such as this.

 

[benedictus2]

The question I used to illustrate my point was not whether the Universe was designed by intelligent means, but whether “God” exists.

It is the same coin. God is the term we give to the Intelligient Designer.

If the universe what intelligiently designed, then that Intellegient Designer is God therefore He exists.

At this stage all we are positing is that of the “generic” God, i.e. Creator, which is probably more a case for deism.

 

[robsully]

Hello all.
Taking a moment away from the " does God exist" debate and going back to the “utterly illogical-utterly evil” post.
My question for the Christians: Is what you believe,virgin birth, rising from the dead, logical?

 

[benedictus2]

Hello all.
Taking a moment away from the " does God exist" debate and going back to the “utterly illogical-utterly evil” post.
My question for the Christians: Is what you believe,virgin birth, rising from the dead, logical?

Yes if you understand in depth Christian theology. But to explain Christian theology to an atheist would be like trying to make a 2 year old the complexities of physics.

But strictly from a deistic and theistic point of view, if God does exist and He was able to create and continues to create this awesome universe from nothing, then the virgin birth and resurrection from the dead is a piece of cake.

 

[prodigalson12]

Hello all.
Taking a moment away from the " does God exist" debate and going back to the “utterly illogical-utterly evil” post.
My question for the Christians: Is what you believe,virgin birth, rising from the dead, logical?

Completely logical, God can do all things, not just some things ALL, tis a very very small thing to show the miracles he has, you should also be very, very and I mean very thankful for his mercy and patience otherwise he would wipe you and your kind from the face of the planet so quickly, it would be as if you never existed…