ATTN: People Who Believe in Creation Myths

[john9blue]

How many fallacies can a creationist cram in one forum post?

-TG

this shit is intellectually dishonest. this is why i don't tolerate militant atheist scumbags.

[zimmah]

-TG

this woman believes in god too, according to my lip-reading skills she is saying "Oh my god".

[TA1LGUNN3R]

How many fallacies can a creationist cram in one forum post?

-TG

this shit is intellectually dishonest. this is why i don't tolerate militant atheist scumbags.

Perhaps I could've clarified... but I would've thought the context spoke for itself. This was referring to the salt-water aquarium as a real world model. Seriously, this has nothing to do with a/theism, if you think you can compare the mechanics of a small aquarium with the entire global system, and somehow that proves god or disproves evolution, then you're fucking stupid or a troll.

-TG

[john9blue]

Perhaps I could've clarified... but I would've thought the context spoke for itself. This was referring to the salt-water aquarium as a real world model. Seriously, this has nothing to do with a/theism, if you think you can compare the mechanics of a small aquarium with the entire global system, and somehow that proves god or disproves evolution, then you're fucking stupid or a troll.

-TG

ok, i mean, this is better. at least now i know what you disagree with...

[natty dread]

How many fallacies can a creationist cram in one forum post?

-TG

this shit is intellectually dishonest. this is why i don't tolerate militant atheist scumbags.

Man, and I was just going to send you some mlp porn i found, but now that you called me names i'm keeping it all for myself;

guess you'll never get to see pinkie pie going down on fluttershy now.

[john9blue]

Man, and I was just going to send you some mlp porn i found, but now that you called me names i'm keeping it all for myself;

guess you'll never get to see pinkie pie going down on fluttershy now.

pfft, please, you think this is my first day on the internet or something?

[Haggis_McMutton]

i think the FSM is more ridiculous, seeing as spaghetti is a man-made invention, but i guess it's a matter of opinion.

It's in the same ballpark at least.
Also, what TG said (may he be touched by His noodly appendage).

creating the universe doesn't count as having an "effect on our universe"?

If he did it in a way that leaves no traces of his action, and subsequently he didn't interact with it anymore it's kinda sketchy. Kinda tough to prove that god is not unfalsifiable.

and why are you assuming that a creation has to be less complex than its creator? isn't it possible for a human (or team of humans) to design something more complex than the human brain?

Possibly, but this vastly restricts the god space and eliminates pretty much all the popular choices.
Are we in agreement that the omniscient god and the personal god aren't good explanations for anything?

oh and the fact that we've proved that lightning, etc. wasn't the direct work of god just means that humans were stupid 1,000+ years ago. i don't think human ignorance is evidence against god...

You're assuming 1000+ years from now our questions won't seem equally stupid.

[zimmah]

How many fallacies can a creationist cram in one forum post?

-TG

this shit is intellectually dishonest. this is why i don't tolerate militant atheist scumbags.

Perhaps I could've clarified... but I would've thought the context spoke for itself. This was referring to the salt-water aquarium as a real world model. Seriously, this has nothing to do with a/theism, if you think you can compare the mechanics of a small aquarium with the entire global system, and somehow that proves god or disproves evolution, then you're fucking stupid or a troll.

-TG

if you believe that the world, which is far more complex then an aquarium, can magically create a perfect balance, while an aquarium takes many months of preparation by an intelligent life-form (human) even BEFORE you put any fish in it (considering you want the fish to stay alive for longer then a few minutes), then you are fucking stupid or a troll.

seriously.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Futher, we have a long history of solving unanswered questions that once relied on gods, without relying on god. So, I guess this would count as inductive proof that god isn't necessary.

that is exactly what adam and eve stated when they took the forbidden fruit. and that is exactly the reason why we're here.

the devil wants us to believe we don't need god. but look around, we do. unless you want to world to be an even greater mess each following year until we get to the point where the world is totally uninhabitable.

Didn't you just state hell doesn't exist?

Also, to clarify a little bit, you literally believe the whole of humankind are the incestuous descendants of 2 people ?

Look around me?
What I see around me is unprecedented longevity and health for humankind. We live far longer are far healthier and far more productive. We spend less time having to worry about primal needs and more engaged in intellectually and emotionally satisfying endeavours.

We have conquered the skies and the seas, we have a permanent base at the southmostern spot of the earth, we've been to the FUCKING MOON, we are all interconected to an amazing degree such that I can easily and freely see and talk to my friends half-way across the globe.
Life has been getting better every goddamn century pretty much without fail, and lately it has been getting better every decade as well.

You see all this and reach the conclusion that we need an iron age father figure to tell us what's best? No, we've grown past the need for bedtime stories, your stone age god was necessary in the stone age, now it's time to let go of the safety blanket and realise it all depends on us.
Humankind is only what we make of ourselves.

[zimmah]

Didn't you just state hell doesn't exist?

yes, so?

Also, to clarify a little bit, you literally believe the whole of humankind are the incestuous descendants of 2 people ?

yes. and that makes more sense then to believe we descend from algae, then fish, then frogs, then monkeys and then caveman. or whatever it is you believe in. now THAT takes some faith. and even IF that is true (there's totally no scientific evidence that even suggest something like this), then still the questions how life started, how the universe started and how the laws of physics starts remain unanswered.

Look around me?
What I see around me is unprecedented longevity and health for humankind. We live far longer are far healthier and far more productive. We spend less time having to worry about primal needs and more engaged in intellectually and emotionally satisfying endeavours.

and yet there's ever more wars, ever more difference between poor and rich, ever more hate, ever more pollution, declining resources, etc. do you really think this world will hold itself together for say 100 more years? you have to be quite ignorant to see this system just does not work. has mankind ever reached global peace? has mankind ever solved problems like hunger, illness like cancer and aids, yes we have medication for a lot of deadly diseases but by the time we have the cure for one disease there's 2 more at the doorstep.

We have conquered the skies and the seas, we have a permanent base at the southmostern spot of the earth, we've been to the FUCKING MOON, we are all interconected to an amazing degree such that I can easily and freely see and talk to my friends half-way across the globe.
Life has been getting better every goddamn century pretty much without fail, and lately it has been getting better every decade as well.

we have the technology to visit the moon and some planets in our solar system, yet thousands and thousands of people die each day from aids and hunger. are you proud of this civilization? really? Royal Dutch Shell (hollands biggest oil company) makes over 2.5 million dollar in PROFIT (not even revenue, PROFIT) an hour, yet there's like 500 million+ people in the world that have less then $2 a day to spent on basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. yes, we have an amazing world, really i love this freedom. we're much better off without god, are we?

You see all this and reach the conclusion that we need an iron age father figure to tell us what's best? No, we've grown past the need for bedtime stories, your stone age god was necessary in the stone age, now it's time to let go of the safety blanket and realise it all depends on us.
Humankind is only what we make of ourselves.

you'll soon see what "my stone god" is capable off as god declared

And they shall know that I am Jehovah when I shall scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the countries. But I will leave a few men of them from the sword, from the famine, and from the pestilence; that they may declare all their abominations among the nations whither they shall come; and they shall know that I am Jehovah.

[pmchugh]

yes. and that makes more sense then to believe we descend from algae, then fish, then frogs, then monkeys and then caveman. or whatever it is you believe in. now THAT takes some faith. and even IF that is true (there's totally no scientific evidence that even suggest something like this), then still the questions how life started, how the universe started and how the laws of physics starts remain unanswered.

No evidence? Oh dear.

[natty dread]

Well, if you ignore pretty much 99% of the scientific research done in the last 200 years, then yeah, you could say that there's no evidence of common descent. That does take some mpressive feats of willing ignorance, though.

[Lootifer]

Someone mentioning hell reminded me of Iain M Banks' recent novel "Surface Detail"; very good fiction if you like sci-fi.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not stating the underlined. I'm stating that you're being arbitrary. "God might be possible, but not sperm worms" (see natty_dread summary). However, you might have a point against JB about his sperm worms IF they lack divine/unfalsifiable properties, but that's for him to explain.

sperm worms ARE possible... just highly unlikely, for the same reasons that a god who only smites people named "becky" every tuesday for entertainment is unlikely.

What's your standard for determining the likelihood of the existence Divine Worm Sperm, FSM, Ra, God, etc.? In other words, how do you know?

Regarding the underlined:
When the "evidence" for both "God" and "Divine Sperm Worms" becomes unfalsifiable, people will then choose "God" or "whatever" based on arbitrary, faith-based, and utility-maximizing reasons. It doesn't mean that A exists while B doesn't exist, or that A is more probable of being true than B. It means that humans are capable of creating the idea of God.

In other words, humans are capable of creating unfalsifiable claims while providing "evidence" like religious texts, thus bringing us to these silly arguments about unfalsifiable ideas. The FSM, the Flying Gnomes Theory of the Universe, and the Divine Sperm Worm serve as examples. If humans can create those three, then they certainly are capable of creating the idea of "God" as defined by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

see, the thing is that i don't think god is unfalsifiable. i think the god hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis. that alone doesn't make it "likely", however... it just means that it is a statement which can be tested with science (maybe not our current scientific methods, though)

Sure, perhaps with magic we can test for it.

Joking aside, why do you think that the idea of god is falsifiable?

At this point, people like daddy1gringo will balk and create an impasse. They'll deny that fact, or they'll say, "maybe," but in reality say "no" by providing an unfalsifiable claim like "god is the ultimate cause which forced humans to create the idea of God." This is a faith-based claim. We can also state that the FSM is the ultimate cause which forced humans to create the idea of God. Both can't be proven false nor true, however...

Both are possible, yet people choose "God" because it's a choice based on their preferences (arbitrary), an appeal to faith, and for maximizing utility (club goods, fear of persecution, desire to be accepted, provides a low-cost explanation to certain questions: "Why? God did it", etc. etc.). Then, there's the positive feedback loop which affirms their beliefs (e.g. confirmation bias--"seeing God everywhere," the appeal to authority--"Bible says so," appeal to emotion--"makes me feel good," etc.).

i think you're right and i think that's why organized religion has been so successful.

but that doesn't really have anything to do with the god hypothesis.

Sure, it doesn't disprove the god hypothesis. I'm just showing the departure from reason that is involved when sincerely accepting and maintaining a religious belief.

Question for J9B (and others) about agnosticism:
Given that humans are capable of creating the idea of a deity and that there's no logical means to determine which is true and which isn't, then I must conclude that religion is just silly, so I'll remain atheist (as Haggis defined it). Much of these religions' evidence is based on cognitive bias and logical fallacies. It isn't reasonable for me to believe something which is founded upon those problems. Given the above, why remain agnostic? How much do you value faith over logic and reason?

well, like i said, i think there are logical means to determine which is true and which isn't.

what if i said "i believe in a god that turns the sky pink"? you'd be able to disprove that god with near certainty by observing that the sky is not pink.

oh, and why do you jump straight to atheism when you realize that a religion is silly? that's like saying "i hate food" after trying haggis and discovering that it's nasty.

My answer to your first two paragraphs hinges on your answer to "why do you think that the idea of god is falsifiable?," so that'll wait for now.


If a religion runs with the idea of god and relies on logical fallacies and cognitive bias as support (i.e. haggis, the food), then I'm going to doubt the credibility of its claims (e.g. you should pray to God to fix things or give you guidance, or God did it, but not FSM because the Bible says so). No, that's a load of bs that humans made up, sorry.

show

Non-Haggis "foods"?
According to the Haggis definition, I'm an atheist because it's the most reasonable choice. I'd be Zen Buddhist, but I don't buy the reincarnation cycle, donate to the temples, chant mantras as necessary, or light incense to dead spirits.

If you want to argue that adhering to logical fallacies and refusing to look beyond one's cognitive bias is more reasonable, then please go ahead.

Anyway, to repeat: Given the above, why remain agnostic? How much do you value faith over logic and reason?

show

Relevant Conclusion to the Underlined:
So, issues of probability don't really matter with various meanings of "god." It's more about the perceived value of joining a certain religion and the means involved which influence and reinforce that decision. The idea of "God," whether it's in the FSM format or not, is unfalsifiable, tends to be supported by logical fallacies, and is reinforced by cognitive bias. For many, that doesn't matter because they value faith (thus the club goods) more than reason/logic.

why is it not reasonable or logical to value the benefits that religion provides to society? even if the probability of the religion's teachings being true is low, joining a religion can improve one's quality of life in a noticeable way.

So, if you value faith over reason/logic, and if you choose to not find substitutes or fail to find substitutes for the religious club goods, then sure, it's reasonable to accept religion A because an individual's rationality is constrained by the limits of his knowledge.

I think I see the confusion. I'm using "reasonable" and "rational" interchangeably. Think of it this way:

It's unreasonable to depart from reason.
It's rational to like things because you just like them (e.g. tastes and preferences), or it's rational to join a religion if that is how you maximize utility (e.g. gaining access to religious club goods and benefits).

In other words, it's not reasonable to support a belief system that is based on logical fallacies and requires a strong maintenance of cognitive bias; however, it is rational to value the benefits provided by that religion.

[BigBallinStalin]

we have the technology to visit the moon and some planets in our solar system, yet thousands and thousands of people die each day from aids and hunger. are you proud of this civilization? really? Royal Dutch Shell (hollands biggest oil company) makes over 2.5 million dollar in PROFIT (not even revenue, PROFIT) an hour, yet there's like 500 million+ people in the world that have less then $2 a day to spent on basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. yes, we have an amazing world, really i love this freedom. we're much better off without god, are we?

Well, God certainly did not lead to the accumulation of wealth, rising life expectancy rates, and increased standards of living for human beings over the past 1000 years.

Those were from human action.


What's missing from your criticism is a benchmark of comparison, Hans Rosling will help you with that:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

[Juan_Bottom]

science is merely observing and trying to understand whatever it is you study. Absolutely nothing disproves the exsistence of god and in fact there's many things that highly suggest there is a mastermind that created the universe.

did any of you atheist ever try to have a salt water aquarium? you should try it once, you'll see how hard it is to obtain a perfect balance as to keep your fish alive. Now do you really believe the whole world, which is far more complex, to be randomly filled with life and able to sustain itself? also, look at what happened to australia and new zealand for example when humans brought foreign animals to it, nature sure knew to balance itself, right? oh wait, it didn't.

the scientific method is based on the theory that if you repeat an experiment, it has to give the same results, then why is it that no matter what, no life is suddenly appearing anymore? why are there no more big bangs happening, and what even triggered the big bang n the first place? those things are totaly UNSCIENTIFIC. they can not be repeated. if anything, science PROVES god.

I don't even know how to answer any of this because it's so far from... like...jeez, I'll try though.

science is merely observing and trying to understand whatever it is you study.

no

Absolutely nothing disproves the exsistence of god and in fact there's many things that highly suggest there is a mastermind that created the universe.

no
We're actually talking about what makes a God so unlikely in this very thread. Anything Unfalsifiable is not science at all. Practically speaking, it doesn't exist.

did any of you atheist ever try to have a salt water aquarium? you should try it once, you'll see how hard it is to obtain a perfect balance as to keep your fish alive. Now do you really believe the whole world, which is far more complex, to be randomly filled with life and able to sustain itself?

First, you can actually set up an aquarium so that it is self-containing/sustaining. It's called an ecosystem.
Natural ecosystems take thousands to millions of years to balance themselves out. This is third-grade level science here.

the scientific method is based on the theory that if you repeat an experiment, it has to give the same results,

That's not science. There are mathematical and theoretical spheres that are based on not getting the same results. Multiverse theory is an example that says that there could be bajillions of big bangs that all experience different results. It's even in the realm of possibility that these extend multidimensionally.

then why is it that no matter what, no life is suddenly appearing anymore?

There is no scientific book in the world that says this. It could be happening today... yeah. It just doesn't need to. It only has to happen once out of a septillion times.

why are there no more big bangs happening, and what even triggered the big bang n the first place?

Again, many astronomers agree that there could be big bangs happening outside of our universe. There is a prevalent theory that our own universe exists in a perpetual cycle of expanding and contracting, doomed to repeat the big bang over and over for forever. This stuff was published in like the 50s. It's not new. You just don't know what you're talking about.
We literally have no idea what triggered the big bang. But we can rewind our universe all the way back to a fraction of a second. The work put into this is amazing, if you take the time to read about it.

those things are totaly UNSCIENTIFIC. they can not be repeated. if anything, science PROVES god.

This is just gibberish.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

if you believe that the world, which is far more complex then an aquarium, can magically create a perfect balance, while an aquarium takes many months of preparation by an intelligent life-form (human) even BEFORE you put any fish in it (considering you want the fish to stay alive for longer then a few minutes), then you are fucking stupid or a troll.

seriously.

Perfect balance? Wtf you talking about, bro? Every second of the day, organisms are responding to changes in their environment. There isn't this static habitat where organisms just live in blissful harmony. Change is the name of the game.

Since you brought up the marine aquarium, let's stick to the oceans, and I'll compare the natural vs. artificial environments and why your argument is invalid. Maybe I'll bring up your ridiculous Australia part, too.

First, marine aquariums are so difficult because of the limitations of water volume and mechanical parts, and lack of true diversity. Less water volume than the natural habitat means that any change in your system is going to quickly and with greater effects create situations that are harmful to your fish. Since the fish are stuck in a small space, they can't escape, like they would in nature. Pumps fail, negligence happens, filters don't get cleaned, etc. etc., and because organisms that act as natural checks are probably not present in your tank, then your fish die.

Second, any tank that you set up is merely an artificial approximation of the environment... Like a matchbox race car against a functioning race car. There are so many factors at play that we can't recreate exactly the same environment in a 20 gallon tank. And this is precisely where your thinking goes wrong. The organisms of those natural habitats have been there for thousands of generations. Supplanting them to an artificial one that is at best a crude model means they might not be adapted well to the new parameters.

Third, you greatly overstate the "random," part. You don't see koalas roaming about in the States. There are clearly populations that are localized to pretty small areas. Generally, species will only branch out if they have to.

Which brings me to the Australia part. I honestly don't really know what you're driving at there. How does that prove god or disprove competitive environments? New species were introduced, and they were able to take thrive in the new locale at the expense of the native populations. This is one of the standards of evolutionary biology.

I really, really, really hope you're just posting this shit for teh lulz, because it seems as though you have absolutely no idea how this shit works and yet you feel qualified to discuss it as though you do.

the following scientist believed in god, among many more: (source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... faith.html)

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

(note, although einstein states he does not beleive in god, he also can't believe there is no god, einstein just did not understand that if there were to be a god, why there can be so much evil in the world, source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html so that's why i put him in this list as well)

according to a recent survey 1 in 3 scientist in the USA believe in god. this is low compared to the 82% of amercians in 2009 that sad to beleive in god, but consider the high amount of social pressure from other scientists.

Most of those scientists predate the theory of evolution, and were slaves to the times they lived in. And ffs, Einstein was not a theist.

Please sauce that survey, because it's bullshit. According to Nature, only 7% of scientists in the National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal God.

Didn't you just state hell doesn't exist?

Also, to clarify a little bit, you literally believe the whole of humankind are the incestuous descendants of 2 people ?

Look around me?
What I see around me is unprecedented longevity and health for humankind. We live far longer are far healthier and far more productive. We spend less time having to worry about primal needs and more engaged in intellectually and emotionally satisfying endeavours.

We have conquered the skies and the seas, we have a permanent base at the southmostern spot of the earth, we've been to the FUCKING MOON, we are all interconected to an amazing degree such that I can easily and freely see and talk to my friends half-way across the globe.
Life has been getting better every goddamn century pretty much without fail, and lately it has been getting better every decade as well.

You see all this and reach the conclusion that we need an iron age father figure to tell us what's best? No, we've grown past the need for bedtime stories, your stone age god was necessary in the stone age, now it's time to let go of the safety blanket and realise it all depends on us.
Humankind is only what we make of ourselves.

qft. Cue Land of Confusion.

-TG

[zimmah]

Well, if you ignore pretty much 99% of the scientific research done in the last 200 years, then yeah, you could say that there's no evidence of common descent. That does take some mpressive feats of willing ignorance, though.

just because or DNA has things in common doesn't mean we share the same parents. If you create a game, you wouldn't design a different programming language for each individual object either, now would you?

[zimmah]

we have the technology to visit the moon and some planets in our solar system, yet thousands and thousands of people die each day from aids and hunger. are you proud of this civilization? really? Royal Dutch Shell (hollands biggest oil company) makes over 2.5 million dollar in PROFIT (not even revenue, PROFIT) an hour, yet there's like 500 million+ people in the world that have less then $2 a day to spent on basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. yes, we have an amazing world, really i love this freedom. we're much better off without god, are we?

Well, God certainly did not lead to the accumulation of wealth, rising life expectancy rates, and increased standards of living for human beings over the past 1000 years.

Those were from human action.


What's missing from your criticism is a benchmark of comparison, Hans Rosling will help you with that:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

well DUH, do you even know what the purpose is of this period of human civilization? it's to give humankind the opportunity to proof we don't need god. we have had several thousand years to try and make an earth worth living for everyone (and not only for the rich) and while doing that, also sustain life on earth. So far, we haven't been anywhere close. But god can't really help us because that would not be fair. How would it be fair if god doesn't allow us to mess around and try to prove we can do without his help?

[zimmah]

science is merely observing and trying to understand whatever it is you study.

no

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

definitly a yes. shut up talking about science if you don't even know what science is.

[BigBallinStalin]

we have the technology to visit the moon and some planets in our solar system, yet thousands and thousands of people die each day from aids and hunger. are you proud of this civilization? really? Royal Dutch Shell (hollands biggest oil company) makes over 2.5 million dollar in PROFIT (not even revenue, PROFIT) an hour, yet there's like 500 million+ people in the world that have less then $2 a day to spent on basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. yes, we have an amazing world, really i love this freedom. we're much better off without god, are we?

Well, God certainly did not lead to the accumulation of wealth, rising life expectancy rates, and increased standards of living for human beings over the past 1000 years.

Those were from human action.


What's missing from your criticism is a benchmark of comparison, Hans Rosling will help you with that:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

well DUH, do you even know what the purpose is of this period of human civilization? it's to give humankind the opportunity to proof we don't need god. we have had several thousand years to try and make an earth worth living for everyone (and not only for the rich) and while doing that, also sustain life on earth. So far, we haven't been anywhere close. But god can't really help us because that would not be fair. How would it be fair if god doesn't allow us to mess around and try to prove we can do without his help?

"god can't really help us because that would not be fair."

By implication, God was being unjust whenever he helped us. If he created the Earth to be a habitable place, then that's helping humans; therefore, it's unfair. When he beamed down Jesus from the Mothership Connection, god was helping humans; therefore, it was unfair. When he appeared in the form of a burning bush, or loaded Moses' drink with shrooms, god was helping humans; therefore, it was unfair.

According to your logic, god is not fair. He is unjust.

Anyway, seeing that he has helped humans before, why not help them with other problems? I guess because he's unjust. That would make him an asshole, wouldn't it?

[zimmah]

science is merely observing and trying to understand whatever it is you study. Absolutely nothing disproves the exsistence of god and in fact there's many things that highly suggest there is a mastermind that created the universe.

did any of you atheist ever try to have a salt water aquarium? you should try it once, you'll see how hard it is to obtain a perfect balance as to keep your fish alive. Now do you really believe the whole world, which is far more complex, to be randomly filled with life and able to sustain itself? also, look at what happened to australia and new zealand for example when humans brought foreign animals to it, nature sure knew to balance itself, right? oh wait, it didn't.

the scientific method is based on the theory that if you repeat an experiment, it has to give the same results, then why is it that no matter what, no life is suddenly appearing anymore? why are there no more big bangs happening, and what even triggered the big bang n the first place? those things are totaly UNSCIENTIFIC. they can not be repeated. if anything, science PROVES god.

I don't even know how to answer any of this because it's so far from... like...jeez, I'll try though.

science is merely observing and trying to understand whatever it is you study.

no

Absolutely nothing disproves the exsistence of god and in fact there's many things that highly suggest there is a mastermind that created the universe.

no
We're actually talking about what makes a God so unlikely in this very thread. Anything Unfalsifiable is not science at all. Practically speaking, it doesn't exist.

UNLIKELY =/= DISPROVE besides, you have not shown ANY evidence at all, you all just laugh, but have NOTHING AT ALL to back it up.

did any of you atheist ever try to have a salt water aquarium? you should try it once, you'll see how hard it is to obtain a perfect balance as to keep your fish alive. Now do you really believe the whole world, which is far more complex, to be randomly filled with life and able to sustain itself?

First, you can actually set up an aquarium so that it is self-containing/sustaining. It's called an ecosystem.
Natural ecosystems take thousands to millions of years to balance themselves out. This is third-grade level science here.

this is totally unscientific, there's no proof whatsoever to even point remotely in this direction, in fact, the little proof we have point in the exact OPPOSITE direction. if you leave an aquarium with nothing more then water for thousands/millions of years you'll most likely only find algae or fungi in there, which haven't even created in the aquarium, but god there from the outside. But there will never be any new lifeforms forming in there at all. And if you want a self-sustaining aquarium, you have to spent at least half a year on it to get it started in the first place (in the case of salt-water aquariums) that takes work, it doesn't create itself. So what reason do you have to believe earth created itself, and a insanely complex ecosystem miraculously started forming without any form of intelligent design? that is completely unscientific fiction and you know it. (or you're pretty stupid if you don't know that) in fact, how dare you even call it science if you state that it takes thousands to millions of years to balance themself out, science, and especially that form of science does not even exist for that long, so there's no way they could have possibly observed it for that long, so their science is nothing more then a hypothesis, and on small scale it has proofed to be false, so on what basis do they assume their hypothesis is correct on bigger scale? it's science fiction. If you think it's too difficult for you to obey god, fine, but don't make up stories just to justify yourself and expect me to believe them.

the scientific method is based on the theory that if you repeat an experiment, it has to give the same results,

That's not science. There are mathematical and theoretical spheres that are based on not getting the same results. Multiverse theory is an example that says that there could be bajillions of big bangs that all experience different results. It's even in the realm of possibility that these extend multidimensionally.

that's not scientific, that is just guessing and totaly unscientific. not based on any facts at all.

then why is it that no matter what, no life is suddenly appearing anymore?

There is no scientific book in the world that says this. It could be happening today... yeah. It just doesn't need to. It only has to happen once out of a septillion times.

wouldn't that then be considered a miracle?

why are there no more big bangs happening, and what even triggered the big bang n the first place?

Again, many astronomers agree that there could be big bangs happening outside of our universe. There is a prevalent theory that our own universe exists in a perpetual cycle of expanding and contracting, doomed to repeat the big bang over and over for forever. This stuff was published in like the 50s. It's not new. You just don't know what you're talking about.
We literally have no idea what triggered the big bang. But we can rewind our universe all the way back to a fraction of a second. The work put into this is amazing, if you take the time to read about it.

again, these are just assumptions, nothing more.

those things are totaly UNSCIENTIFIC. they can not be repeated. if anything, science PROVES god.

This is just gibberish.

so again, where's you proof mister scientist?

[zimmah]

we have the technology to visit the moon and some planets in our solar system, yet thousands and thousands of people die each day from aids and hunger. are you proud of this civilization? really? Royal Dutch Shell (hollands biggest oil company) makes over 2.5 million dollar in PROFIT (not even revenue, PROFIT) an hour, yet there's like 500 million+ people in the world that have less then $2 a day to spent on basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. yes, we have an amazing world, really i love this freedom. we're much better off without god, are we?

Well, God certainly did not lead to the accumulation of wealth, rising life expectancy rates, and increased standards of living for human beings over the past 1000 years.

Those were from human action.


What's missing from your criticism is a benchmark of comparison, Hans Rosling will help you with that:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

well DUH, do you even know what the purpose is of this period of human civilization? it's to give humankind the opportunity to proof we don't need god. we have had several thousand years to try and make an earth worth living for everyone (and not only for the rich) and while doing that, also sustain life on earth. So far, we haven't been anywhere close. But god can't really help us because that would not be fair. How would it be fair if god doesn't allow us to mess around and try to prove we can do without his help?

"god can't really help us because that would not be fair."

By implication, God was being unjust whenever he helped us. If he created the Earth to be a habitable place, then that's helping humans; therefore, it's unfair. When he beamed down Jesus from the Mothership Connection, god was helping humans; therefore, it was unfair. When he appeared in the form of a burning bush, or loaded Moses' drink with shrooms, god was helping humans; therefore, it was unfair.

According to your logic, god is not fair. He is unjust.

Anyway, seeing that he has helped humans before, why not help them with other problems? I guess because he's unjust. That would make him an asshole, wouldn't it?

you don't understand what i was trying to say.

god created earth to be a habitable place, because by the time he created earth, god was the leader of it. however, at some time, adam and eve decided they no longer needed god, and from THAT POINT ON god gave us a few thousand years to give us the opportunity to show to god that we do not need him. now if he helps us when things go wrong, that wouldn't be fair. because then god would help us even though we said we wanted to do things on our own.

also, jesus came down not to help us directly, but indirectly, he gave us the opportunity to accept we need god, and yes, jesus did solve some problems on small scale (he raised some people from the death and cured some people etc.) but that was only to show us that he has the power to do those things. He did not get involved in politics or anything to help out the world problems on bigger scale. He could, but he didn't. He'll do that soon though, soon, the world will get in such a bad shape that god will say it's been enough, and at that point t will be very obvious that we need gods help to lead us, and he WILL lead us. and those who don't want god to lead them will just die, it's their own choice.

[BigBallinStalin]

we have the technology to visit the moon and some planets in our solar system, yet thousands and thousands of people die each day from aids and hunger. are you proud of this civilization? really? Royal Dutch Shell (hollands biggest oil company) makes over 2.5 million dollar in PROFIT (not even revenue, PROFIT) an hour, yet there's like 500 million+ people in the world that have less then $2 a day to spent on basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. yes, we have an amazing world, really i love this freedom. we're much better off without god, are we?

Well, God certainly did not lead to the accumulation of wealth, rising life expectancy rates, and increased standards of living for human beings over the past 1000 years.

Those were from human action.


What's missing from your criticism is a benchmark of comparison, Hans Rosling will help you with that:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

well DUH, do you even know what the purpose is of this period of human civilization? it's to give humankind the opportunity to proof we don't need god. we have had several thousand years to try and make an earth worth living for everyone (and not only for the rich) and while doing that, also sustain life on earth. So far, we haven't been anywhere close. But god can't really help us because that would not be fair. How would it be fair if god doesn't allow us to mess around and try to prove we can do without his help?

"god can't really help us because that would not be fair."

By implication, God was being unjust whenever he helped us. If he created the Earth to be a habitable place, then that's helping humans; therefore, it's unfair. When he beamed down Jesus from the Mothership Connection, god was helping humans; therefore, it was unfair. When he appeared in the form of a burning bush, or loaded Moses' drink with shrooms, god was helping humans; therefore, it was unfair.

According to your logic, god is not fair. He is unjust.

Anyway, seeing that he has helped humans before, why not help them with other problems? I guess because he's unjust. That would make him an asshole, wouldn't it?

you don't understand what i was trying to say.

god created earth to be a habitable place, because by the time he created earth, god was the leader of it. however, at some time, adam and eve decided they no longer needed god, and from THAT POINT ON god gave us a few thousand years to give us the opportunity to show to god that we do not need him. now if he helps us when things go wrong, that wouldn't be fair. because then god would help us even though we said we wanted to do things on our own.

also, jesus came down not to help us directly, but indirectly, he gave us the opportunity to accept we need god, and yes, jesus did solve some problems on small scale (he raised some people from the death and cured some people etc.) but that was only to show us that he has the power to do those things. He did not get involved in politics or anything to help out the world problems on bigger scale. He could, but he didn't. He'll do that soon though, soon, the world will get in such a bad shape that god will say it's been enough, and at that point t will be very obvious that we need gods help to lead us, and he WILL lead us. and those who don't want god to lead them will just die, it's their own choice.

You're being arbitrary. "He helped us at these times, but that doesn't really count because it was indirectly--even though smashing open the gates of heaven is pretty direct. Or giving us the guide to being a good person--seems very direct. God was leader of the earth, and helped us by giving us this habitable earth, but not really because if he helps us when things go wrong, that wouldn't be fair."

And you're not making sense.

are you proud of this civilization? really? Royal Dutch Shell (hollands biggest oil company) makes over 2.5 million dollar in PROFIT (not even revenue, PROFIT) an hour, yet there's like 500 million+ people in the world that have less then $2 a day to spent on basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. yes, we have an amazing world, really i love this freedom. we're much better off without god, are we?

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

Yeah, we're much better off.

[zimmah]

with direct i mean stopping the problems at the root, by taking over the world government and stopping all world problems. jesus only helped a handfull of persons and even those persosn eventually got sick and died again.