>There have been over 3000 political philosophies, only yours is true.
>There has been over 3000 physical models, only yours is true
>There has been over 3000 moral codes, only yours is true
You sound just like the religious you hate
Are atheist hypocrites?
Before some atheist come in here and claim agnosticism is the same thing as atheism
In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God."
Do you believe in God?
Agnostic: Maybe or I will neither confirm nor deny
Don't overthink it
No, you subhuman retard.
The question "Do you believe in God?" is a yes or no question. Either you do believe in god right now, or you don't believe in god right now.
If you're agnostic it essentially says that you're uncertain of your answer, and most Atheists are Agnostic Atheists in the sense that they're uncertain whether god exists or not but consider the likelihood of his existence slim enough to not base their lives around the assumption that he does.
Atheism ostensibly should be a lack of belief in a deity but nobody who self describes as an atheist possesses that characteristic, instead they have a belief that there is no deity. Most people who self describe as agnostics are actual atheists. People who describe themselves as atheists are better termed "anti-theist" which is the position you are refuting with your posts.
There is absolutely no indication that god exists. Therefore he doesn't.
>inb4 hurr can't kno nuffins
>inb4 absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Yes you can, and yes it is. This kind of unrealistically hard positivism is only ever applied to god.
Either trolling or retarded, then again this is a religion thread
Agnosticism and anti-theism are both subsets of atheism. Just like how polytheism and pantheism are both subsets of theism.
Additionally people who believe there is no deity aren't necessarily anti-theists unless they are explicitly against the belief in a deity.
I never understood this logic. What exactly is the evidence you would need to prove God in the common sense of the word existed? I would imagine that God, by nature of his common description, obviously cannot be proven by traditional methods even if he were real, so why do so many people insist on that avenue of proof anyways?
>most Atheists are Agnostic Atheists in the sense that they're uncertain whether god exists or not but consider the likelihood of his existence slim enough to not base their lives around the assumption that he does.
>consider the likelihood of his existence slim
upon what basis?
>What exactly is the evidence you would need to prove God in the common sense of the word existed?
I suppose something so clearly supernatural and inexplicably contrary to what we know.
Like if someone found the Ark of the Covenant and their face melted off on sight. I suppose that would be a compelling case for the Abrahamic god.
Presumably something that doesn't just boil down to "my feels say he exist" followed by some attempt to logic something into existence. Physical evidence of his existence that can't be better explained by naturalistic processes would be handy.
>Like if someone found the Ark of the Covenant and their face melted off on sight. I suppose that would be a compelling case for the Abrahamic god.
No it wouldn't. An atheist would just say that the item "Ark of the Covenant" has properties that causes the chemical bonds of the face to break upon exposure (or something along those lines). It would not prove that Yahwah or some similar conception of God is real.
The art of sciencing something away requires that thing to be either repeatable, or observable across the universe so a pattern can be noticed.
Given there would only be one Ark of the Covenant, and it would appear to be the only thing in existence that melts people like wax, it's clearly supernatural.
> Atheist the burden of proof applies as much to you as it does to the Religious
So, care to explain exactly how the atheists are to "prove" that something doesn't exist? You do know that you cannot prove a negative.
Have you ever heard of Russell's Teapot?
The burden of proof lies on the one making the extraordinary claim. And if you don't think that the idea of a hyper-intelligent omnipotent being that transcends space-time and reality as we know it, and has the power to blink an entire universe into existence and *just happens* to look exactly like us, having made us "in his image" isnt pretty fucking extraordinary, then what is?
Physical evidence of his presence that wouldn't be better explained by a naturalistic process.
Also if nothing can prove his existence, then why shouldn't we just dismiss it out of hand? Because some people feel really strongly that he exists?
This is the thing. We have two options
>The universe is uncaused.
>God is uncaused
>God caused the universe
Since the former assumes much less than the latter it's the less bold claim.
They've listened to too many edgy "comedians", my friend.
Monty Python loving, QI watching, Dan Carlin listening, Richard Dawkins reading "scientific intellectuals" that totally never owned a fedora.
>atheism means that you think the universe is uncaused
Yet again the classic agnostic trend of putting random implications on words they don't understand in order to support their own position.
Do you not? Your feelings are irrelevant when you consider the possibility of whether or not something exists. Evidence is the only thing that matters.
>Saying that it was uncaused is an even greater claim than saying it was caused.
How? Is god uncaused?
No, wait, let me guess: God doesn't need a cause because of reasons.
>falling for obvious reddit-tier bait
>fedoras get mad
>everyone else gets mad
This board gets worse and worse everyday. It's just turning into a weird version of /b/ and reddit. This thread is proof of it.
I think I'm just going to stop visiting here; I gave it a shot, but you guys take the cake for the most autistic and cancerous faggots on this website.
For one we do have scripture which describes him quite well. We take the bible literally and see how far we get. Nowadays, people are eager to dismiss the bible as metaphors but in the past it was taken very literally - it is still taken literally in some parts of the world; not to mention the scripture of other religions, e.g. Islam.
If the scripture itself is false in the sense of contradicting our knowledge of the world we have right now, why would you put belief in it?
Certainly, you could reduce your religion to a believe in some primal cause, some nameless creator being which set things in motion and otherwise doesn't interact with the world. However, if that's your definition of god, then why keep the whole rat's tail of religious tradition? Religious rules, nutritional laws, laws on who to sleep with, laws on what to do to whom, laws on cutting off parts of penises, etc.
No, often this very vague and very uninvasive image of god which some religious people proclaim is a rhetoric tactic to immunise themselves against criticism, paddling back to the most basic form of a god one could imagine, hardly more than something which set the big bang in motion, yet this otherworldly image is used to justify something rather worldly: religious service and the aforementioned rules. The explanation how one connects to the other isn't given.
No, if you want to worship the Christian god and want to follow the bible, then the bible is what is used to see whether that sort of god is likely to exist. Same with Islam and other sorts of religion. And if you want to believe in your own, clock-maker type god who merely set things in motion but otherwise has nothing to do with the world, which certainly isn't the type of god described in the bible, then you're free to believe whatever you want - but certainly that type of god doesn't need Christian religious service.
feelings are irrelevant
it's just that a pixie, by definition, is a mythical creature, a small, childlike imp that dances around in the moorland areas of Devon and Cornwall... again, by definition, mythical, and even mythically, exist in the 3D world
there is no reason to believe such creatures exist... there is clearly a reason to at least suppose a creator, since we have no explanation for how the universe, people and kittens exist
only an autist could compare the two
Where do you get that from? Lack of causation means that something doesn't have to come from anything, since it has always been. According to this belief, the universe has always been.
>as much to you as it does to the Religious
Regarding the existence of God? Sure. But the Religious then say "there is a God" AND "he is like this, he wants humans to do X, Y and Z, and will reward followers with SOMETHING in return. I know all this because some human said so hundreds of years ago."
>Given there would only be one Ark of the Covenant,
For all you know, there could be more that were undiscovered. You couldn't even prove it was the Ark of the Covenant of lore. it could be some alien artifact for all you know.
>and it would appear to be the only thing in existence that melts people like wax, it's clearly supernatural.
Again, it could be some high tech technology or something, not "the Ark of the Covenant". Even if it were the Ark, I would believe an atheist is more lively to rationalize it as "When this item was given to humans, the being that claimed to be God that gave it to them was actually a more advanced being of non-supernatural origin"
>Physical evidence of his presence that wouldn't be better explained by a naturalistic process.
I am asking for a literal hypothetical example (and I am doubting one can be provided)
>Also if nothing can prove his existence, then why shouldn't we just dismiss it out of hand? Because some people feel really strongly that he exists?
No, because the issue is if he exists as some religions say, you cannot expect to test the validity through a traditional method as many people charge.
So does the latter.
Oh but wait, I forgot, god is magic and didn't just not come from nothing he didn't come from anywhere. Despite this line of thinking being totally unprecedented throughout the universe we can through all existing metaphysics out of the window and start pulling conclusions out of our asses since we don't know what goes on outside of the universe.
No it doesn't. The view is that God always existed.
Physical laws don't apply to God by virtue that "He" is not bound by the laws of our universe.
>implies metaphysics don't exist in every argument
>uses metaphysics to justify their positions
>I am asking for a literal hypothetical example (and I am doubting one can be provided)
Why? That description was quite adequate. Meet that standard, and I'll be happy to admit God might exist.
>No, because the issue is if he exists as some religions say, you cannot expect to test the validity through a traditional method as many people charge.
I'm not fond of the man, but Hitchen's razor applies here: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
your average /his/ thread.
Also the /his/ shortening sucks. I know it makes sense but I'm willing to bet at some point some tumblrwhales and their fellow whiteknight redditors are going to find out about it and are going to petition the owners to change and a whole shitstorm is going to ensue.
>For all you know, there could be more that were undiscovered. You couldn't even prove it was the Ark of the Covenant of lore. it
This is true, but if it looks like a AOTC, smells like an AOTC, and melts faces like an AOTC, it would take an idiot not to draw the obvious conclusion.
> it could be some alien artifact for all you know.
desu aliens with technology of such advancement that it may as well be magic to all known science would probably be enough to convince me god exists. Until someone could come up with a better explanation.
>Again, it could be some high tech technology or something, not "the Ark of the Covenant". Even if it were the Ark, I would believe an atheist is more lively to rationalize it as "When this item was given to humans, the being that claimed to be God that gave it to them was actually a more advanced being of non-supernatural origin"
I'm not sure why you consider this a salient point. You either prove your assertion, or it gets rejected. If you claim you have a million dollars, and it's relevant to me whether you have a million dollars or not, I expect you to prove it. So it likewise is with how I'm going to live my life if you expect me to follow some inane creed.
>That description was quite adequate.
You did not. If I cannot animated the scenario in a movie (which I can't, since you were too vague), it is not sufficient. I am asking for an hypothetical example of physical evidence that would prove the claim.
>I'm not fond of the man, but Hitchen's razor applies here: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
But the class of evidence you are even asking for cannot logically even be applied to an entity with God's commonly alleged characteristics even if he existed.
>this level of autism
So even after I told you dumb fags that you are basically replying to /b/ tier thread, you dare to continue. Explain this autism.
Reddit and /b/ spend most of the time in petty battles between fedoras and religious nuts, go there if that's what you desire.
>You did not. If I cannot animated the scenario in a movie (which I can't, since you were too vague), it is not sufficient. I am asking for an hypothetical example of physical evidence that would prove the claim.
I already told you: actual physical evidence. Something that cannot be explained through naturalistic forces and implies a creator? Why do I need to provide a hypothetical example? So you can whinge on and on about how atheists would just dismiss it? You know what you have to do, no either put up or shut up.
>But the class of evidence you are even asking for cannot logically even be applied to an entity with God's commonly alleged characteristics even if he existed.
That's awfully fucking convenient for their positions. "We don't need to back up our assertions, because our assertion is so grand we can't back it up." Then your assertion is so fucking grand that I'm going to dismiss it out of hand.
>But the class of evidence you are even asking for cannot logically even be applied to an entity with God's commonly alleged characteristics even if he existed
Fucking what? Not him, but if someone claims to be able to create an entire plane of existence with a mere thought, then it demands a pretty fucking large amount of proof.
If god did exist he could simply transport every nonbeliever to an alternate plane of reality where they could view whatever kind of proof that they needed to believe in higher power.
it's not the same (and that's pretty obvious, because while there's 5+ billion non-atheists in the world, there isn't 5+billion pixie believers in the world)
note, i'm not stating a particular religion's view of a God, i'm simply saying the creator of the universe
Not to mention the religious history.
Christianity is a syncretism. If you look at history you can piece together how Christianity was created and which pre-existing religions it borrowed from. You have the logos element from the Greco-Roman circles, you have the Zoroastrian element of the battle of good vs evil, even the pre-existing Judaic religion isn't original since certain elements pre-existed, e.g. the story of Moses resembling the life of Sargon of Akkad.
It is visible to the naked eye that Christianity has grown over time, over a certain time frame. That it was pieced together out of fractions that were believed before in a completely different context.
How can anyone with a straight face base his life around something clearly made up by people?
I can get it if people like the philosophy around it, the teachings, etc. - but belief in the supernatural aspects of it? Nigger please. Especially a board dedicated to history should know better than that.
The universe itself does, but there's nothing to say a naturalistic force beyond the universe couldn't be the cause.
That said, speculation about the origin of the universe is a pretty pointless angle to go from. Neither side can provide a verifiable explanation.
>physical pixie that exists in the physical world
No, no, no, it's a pixie that exists beyond our world, yet interacts with our world to ensure that it continues to function when nothing is consciously perceiving it.
>it's not the same
Yes, it is the same because it's the same leap of faith.
Also refer to what I wrote in regards to "creator of the universe". If you got your non-intrusive first-cause type god, then feel free to believe in said god, it's merely a stand-in for what happened before the big bang. Keep it.
However, don't try to justify any sort of religious service and religious rules based on something which has absolutely no connection to any religion that exists on Earth. Because as soon as you do that you'll have to justify why you believe in that particular religion and that's where you're going to fail.
Also you might want to look at >>571129.
I don't think you understand how burden of proof works.
If I claim your face is a basketball, and you say "No, it isn't." the burden is SOLELY on me to prove my claim.
If I can provide no evidence, you are not required to provide any. My claim is assumed false.
If you fail to prove evidence, that doesn't man your face "might" be a basketball, and that we "just don't know.
Agnostics are indecisive faggots who fear offending people.
Yes. They're equally likely.
There are known cases of people making up religions of whole cloth.
Or a god of any sort. Unless you're profoundly ignorant about the world, and unable to accept a lack of knowledge, and feel the need to plug the gap with superstition.
>It's somehow more rational because it's more popular
That's very bad logic.
There actually are millions of people out there in Africa that believe superstitious nonsense like raping virgins to cure AIDS. Sometime ago there was even many people in Europe that believed this.
The fact is most people are retards and the fact that lots of them believe something does not make it true. Contrary to what the meme magic meme would have you believe.
If you can't even provide a single example, you are being disingenuous. You can just say "there is no such possible evidence". If you can't even imagine such an example, then there is nothing in the realm of imagination that once seen would make you say "...there really isn't a naturalistic explanation".
>That's awfully fucking convenient for their positions.
No, all it does is say that you cannot expect a traditional empirical approach. But you need more than that to believe or say that (a certain) God does exist.
>It is visible to the naked eye that Christianity has grown over time, over a certain time frame.
The worst part is, anybody who studies ANY theology know WHEN AND WHERE mortal men decided on their doctrine, who spoke against it, their names, and which bits people fucking died believing before it was thrown out.
In some circles, damning them to hell for having been wrong. Abrahamic religions can be proven wrong by pointing to the contradictions in their own history.
Religious individuals, however, tend to explain it all away.
>If you can't even provide a single example, you are being disingenuous. You can just say "there is no such possible evidence". If you can't even imagine such an example, then there is nothing in the realm of imagination that once seen would make you say "...there really isn't a naturalistic explanation".
You do realize how fucking asinine it is to ask someone who exists in a physical, causal universe of set laws, and is a product of it to imagine something that truly doesn't fit within those physical, causal properties or set laws in a way that doesn't imply that the original understanding was flawed, right?
>No, all it does is say that you cannot expect a traditional empirical approach.
So, does that mean that as long as I make sure my claims are totally untestable, you'll regard them as valid? Does that mean Freud's "not even wrong" claims are equally valid?
>But you need more than that to believe or say that (a certain) God does exist.
I would say your standard calls for less than that, not more.
I never understand this logic, and wish it could be better explained, but I guess it comes from a point without explanation.
>Do you believe in god?
Do I believe in god, what? That's not even a complete sentence and certain people base their entire lives upon it. That's like me asking:
>Do you believe in me?
It's like the old, "I accidently a whole coke bottle". Like the what doesn't matter.
>I gave you a good example earlier and you just quit replying to me
I have replied properly while you have kept sidestepping my question. You only wrote "actual physical evidence. Something that cannot be explained through naturalistic forces and implies a creator" and "Physical evidence of his presence that wouldn't be better explained by a naturalistic process." In both cases, I asked you to actually give me an example, not a vague statement that cannot be imagined due to lack of detail. You have not and are still refusing to do so. This makes me believe that you are just saying words, but cannot actually imagine a scenario even hypothetically where your conditions would apply. That is why I am calling you disingenuous, because from your responses, it seems that you cannot imagine such a scenario, yet you are still alleging that such a scenario is in the realm of possibilities - but since you can't imagine it, you don't actually believe such evidence is theoretically possible, and you refuse to acknowledge as such.
So many people are calling you an idiot you're loosing track of who is who. My example was the Ark of the Covenant, or something equally inexplicable.
There you have it, a concrete, easily imaginable example, that I say as an atheist would convince me of god's existence. What are you continuing argue for?
>You do realize how fucking asinine it is to ask someone who exists in a physical, causal universe of set laws, and is a product of it to imagine something that truly doesn't fit within those physical, causal properties or set laws in a way that doesn't imply that the original understanding was flawed, right?
Then why do you ask for evidence as if the entity "exists in a physical, causal universe of set laws" as well? I'm not saying you need to beleive in the thing, but clearly if such a thing even existed, you can't expect the same sort of proof as other things that exist " in a physical, causal universe of set laws"
"does that mean that as long as I make sure my claims are totally untestable, you'll regard them as valid?"
That is not what I said.
>I would say your standard calls for less than that, not more.
Rephrase this. I don't understand your meaning.
Wrong guy, I think he's the Ark of the Covenant fellow, and of course I don't believe such evidence is possible, because I don't believe in the supernatural.
But asking for an example of something that doesn't fit within our universe's laws in a way that doesn't imply that our conception of its laws are wrong from someone who is a product of these laws is absurd because I am myself limited by these laws.
The only person here being disingenuous is yourself, because you're doing it simply to sidestep the fact that you want to be able to assert something without evidence; to grant your particular pet idea special exemption from the same standard every other idea has to live up to, but you're not considering the implications. Do my assertions now gain special exemption from proof if make them grand enough?
>That is not what I said.
It's exactly what you said. Because religions make such grand claims, that are "not even wrong" that they get exemption from burden of proof. Fine, prove God in a different way if you think you have one that's valid.
>Rephrase this. I don't understand your meaning.
I'm saying you'd have to dumb down your standards to accept the existence of God.
That is true, but besides the point. And if he did, presumably it could prove itself beyond simply empirical methods.
How would you know it is the arc of lore, and even then, why would you believe it is God and not something else that provided it? Or even it if is "Yahwah", what's to say he was actually just one of many gods, but he is lying and claiming to be the only one and the one that made the universe?
Would these issues not pop into your mind at all if news of such an arc's discovery occurred?
thats why im an agnostic atheist
i am agnostic because god's existence is undoubtably unknowable
however it is not the least bit contradictory to use logical premises to deduce that god's existence is rather unlikely
read yourself some david hume
I think you're assuming I'm much more of a postivist than I am.
Even if it turned out that it was really an alien artifact, until any science behind it could be explained, I would be satisfied with god as an explanation as for all I or anyone else knows such advanced technology would be totally indistinguishable from the supernatural.
>Or even it if is "Yahwah", what's to say he was actually just one of many gods, but he is lying and claiming to be the only one and the one that made the universe?
Why would it matter? I'm not a theist anyway and this is a hypothetical scenario in extraordinary circumstances, what are you hoping to get out of a hypothetical scenario within a hypothetical scenario?
your lack of general scientific knowledge is astounding. i mean the example for atheistic, scientific input isnt even scientific
i mean, feynman, hawking, it takes but a glance to note that secularists, agnostics, and atheists are who actually populate the vast majority of the scientific community
People in real life already claim that sort of things as proof of aliens. It clearly doesn't show if God exists or not.
>But asking for an example of something that doesn't fit within our universe's laws in a way that doesn't imply that our conception of its laws are wrong from someone who is a product of these laws is absurd because I am myself limited by these laws.
So you do admit a traditional empirical proof indeed should not be expected if such an entity even existed?
>The only person here being disingenuous is yourself, because you're doing it simply to sidestep the fact that you want to be able to assert something without evidence; to grant your particular pet idea special exemption from the same standard every other idea has to live up to
You are blatantly putting words in my mouth now. All I have been attempting to show is that the claim that some atheist make that they need empirical evidence for God is a ridiculous thing to ask for, since there is no such empirical evidence possible. However, as you conveniently just choose ignore in my post here >>571144, I said that, it being said that a traditional empirical approach could not be expected to work if God did exist, that is not sufficient to say if there is a God or not, or what God(s) exist.
I don't know if you forgot or misunderstood that post, or if you were being disingenuous and choose to ignore the point I was arguing about and overextend yourself claiming that by saying "no traditional empirical proof should be expected" that that means you need to believe in God.
If you're talking about things like Nazca lines and crop circles the kind of people who claim it's aliens are taking the same leap of faith as people who would claim it's supernatural.
>It's exactly what you said.
When did I claim that "as long as a claim is untestable, it is valid"? Go on. Show me where I suggested that something being untestable means it is true. Show me where.
I think at one point I suggest such a thing as you said, but I retract that. My only point is just that if such a thing existed, you should not expect a traditional empirical proof of it.
>Agnosticism and anti-theism are both subsets of atheism.
They're not. Due to the etymology of that particular philosophical position:
>Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge")
Atheism is an ABSOLUTE, definitive term of (and for) disbelief in a Deity. An agnostic claims, quite simply, that he or she doesn't know.
It's the implications of your stance. You claim that God cannot be proven in traditional means, so the claim is valid without proof. The implication is that if a claim cannot be proven.
Atheism isn't necessarily absolute, as it simply means anything other than theism. Including saying you don't know, as for all intents and purposes this is indistinguishable from a negative assumption.
See, the second question makes sense because asking, "Do you believe in god?", is a loaded question, implying it does and you're in possible denial. Asking if I think a god could have been, does, or may exist in the future is a real question. One to be clarified with further questions like, "where would these beings exist?", which is usually given the response, everywhere. So, we're inside of god right now? Doesn't that mean god is just another word for the omniverse?
>If you're talking about things like Nazca lines and crop circles the kind of people who claim it's aliens are taking the same leap of faith as people who would claim it's supernatural.
And are generally considered to be nuttier than squirrel-shit.
which, incidentally, is what most atheists look on the frothing bible-bashers as too. When you're so utterly monomanical in your belief in something that has absolutely no evidence, you're pretty much the same as a the loons claiming that the pyramids are landing platforms for spaceships from the planet Zblorg.
>I said that, it being said that a traditional empirical approach could not be expected to work if God did exist, that is not sufficient to say if there is a God or not, or what God(s) exist.
Then if God cannot be asserted to exist, I can safely reject such assertions? Thanks.
>If god did exist he could simply transport every nonbeliever to an alternate plane of reality where they could view whatever kind of proof that they needed to believe in higher power.
If you're talking abut the abrahamic God, why would he do that when it goes against literally everything we know about his teachings and his motives for creating us?
>1. the obligation to prove one's assertion.
the assertion that a god exists?
yes, that is the Burden of Proof, As you quoted from the dictionary.
I know your brains are a bit topsy-turvy what with being filled with mountains of nonsense about talking snakes and people who hear voices in their head and then mangle their children's genitals, and all that, but surely its not THAT difficult to work out...
you say "there is a magical being who created the world.". the atheist meanwhile, is saying "well, there's no evidence for your claim. I don't believe that". this is not an assertion. it is a statement of fact: there is no evidence for that. we hardly need to "assert" anything there. it is you who's claiming that the invisible pink unicorn is out there shitting rainbows and making universes with a wave of the hand.
>the assertion that a god exists?
Not that poster but burden of proof is on anyone who makes the positive claim.
If you promote a belief a metaphysical worldview that has some manner of theism involved, you must defend it.
If you promote a belief a metaphysical worldview that does not have some manner of theism involved, you must defend it.
I swear to God, our civilization will be in decline until at least an introductory class in formal logic is mandatory for everyone and you don't get to be a person until you pass it.
The burden of proof for a positive claim, for instance "There is a God", is on the person making the claim. There is no burden on others to prove their isn't; indeed the logical default is that the claim is baseless until sufficient evidence is given to prove. So ANYthing you claim to be true is assumed to be false until you can prove it.
This is why in any legal system worth a damn, the burden is on the Prosecution to first show that a crime has been committed, and then to prove that you were the one who did it. They are making the positive claim, "A crime has been committed", and then further claiming "And anon did it with the lead pipe in the drawing room!". That is why the presumption of innocence exists.
So no, there is no burden of proof on the Atheist. His is indeed the logical position, as no conclusive evidence has yet been shown that God exists. Agnostics are just wishy-washy fence-sitters who don't understand basic reasoning.
there is no middle ground. Either there is or there isn't a god. Making a claim either way defies basic reasoning. Just because no religion around today has an accurate depiction of god doesn't mean there isn't one out there.
I swear most people who adamantly reject god are actually rejecting religion.
>I don't have a worldview, I just reject others'
I usually find this very weak, where the worldview is implicit or not fully thought out rather than not actually being there.
>Atheists don't defend their worldview as true because it's a negative claim, you can't prove a negative. They simply reject every positive claim.
Anon, what. You can't think of ANY person arguing for worldviews that involve atheism? there is not a single person arguing for materialism nor a reason to argue for it? You're being absurd. This is more than theism/atheism, this is the worldviews they are attached to.
Given how theism/atheism is more than simplistic single beliefs but usually influence major parts of their worldviews both implicitly and explicitly there are positive claims that do end up coming up on both sides.
And obvious example would be divine conservation v. existential inertia.
>saying that there is no god is a much a claim as saying that there is.
Indeed, but not believing in God most certainly is not. "I believe there is a God" is a claim, "I do not believe you" is a rejection of that claim.
I'm getting the feeling you don't understand your own language
you do know what positive is, right? That's the claim "there is a god". That's a positive claim. You have to prove that.
Everyone else can just sit quietly and say nothing. They are making no claims, they have nothing to prove. It's up to you. If you can't prove there is a God, then there is no reason for the rest to assume there is, and no need for them to prove there isn't. It is not two opposing sides, anon. It is one person coming out of a crowd of silent people to say "THIS IS". It's his show. Prove it or get back in line.
>I usually find this very weak, where the worldview is implicit or not fully thought out rather than not actually being there.
Oh no, I never claimed I don't have a world view. I just don't promote a positive claim about the universe. I simply reject the positive claims of others on the grounds of their blatant absurdity.
Why do faggots always misinterpret what agnostic means?
It means the belief (emphasis on belief) that god is unknowable. The neutral implication is not that you aren't sure, it's that you can't know, therefore you don't know. You could also believe god is unknowable, but also believe in god, or believe the concept of god would be inherently unknowable (often referred to as unfalsifiable), and you don't believe such a thing exists.
It literally means without knowledge.
except that it is. There is no happy in between. Here is the fact of the matter. We are all blind and can't tell if the light is on or off and there is not one single person on this earth that can say anything. Anyone who claims to know for sure is either misguided or selling something.
If they were discussing other world views, they would be discussing those world views, you fucking schmuck. But this is a discussion about atheism, which is very simply a lack of belief in God. If they were to assert Feuerbach's brand of humanism, then they would be asserting a claim, but they are not doing that.
>I just don't promote a positive claim about the universe.
So you have a view but keep it to yourself. Alright, then that doesn't fall into what I said originally then. Thank you for your time.
You responded to my comment which explicitly mentions worldviews themselves here >>571512 and your last post you me here >>571520 had you explicitly mentioning worldviews.
Don't pretend we weren't talking about this subject just because you realize you're wrong.
A randomly selected group of theists of type A are to pray for a randomly selected set of patients, a. The same is true for other groups of theists, and a control group. The patients do not know if they are being prayed for or if they are in the control group, they wouldn't know the religions that could be praying for them, the medical professionals wouldn't know, the prayers would never meet the patients or even be within X miles of them, etc. until all conditions are controlled. If any one group of patients has a higher recovery rate than the others or the control group, and this effect is statistically significant, repeatable and independently reproduceable, that would be evidence for a specific flavor of theism. Now, if (when) their failed to be a repeatable significant difference, theists would then simply claim that their deity does not appreciate being tested, and thus did not answer the prayers of anyone involved. Thus, the deity grants or removes medical assistance based on how people would percieve them, in which case they are less moral than any doctor and not worth worshipping in the first place.
>Don't pretend we weren't talking about this subject just because you realize you're wrong.
What the fuck are you even talking about? I'm saying your point about worldviews is irrelevant to this fucking thread because the sole topic of discussion here is atheism, which is a rejection of positive assertions about the world, not a worldview.
pointed out you have strayed off into some strange tangent. I'm not sure if this is because you're trying to do an end-run around the logical problem here and you really don't like atheists, or if you're just trying to forward some point you're fond of and this seemed like a good thread to piggyback it on
You're fairly polite, but you're wrong. Rejection of a positive claim that lacks evidence is not another kind of positive claim that requires evidence.
>You made a claim about atheism/theism
>I chimed in about applying that distinction to discussion of worldviews themselves
>You say >>571520
>I tell you why that's wrong
>You're not upset that we're talking about worldviews as a whole and saying its irrelevant
You responded to me chiming in with the additional point of discussion of worldviews as a whole. If you didn't want to discuss it, that's fine, but if you're going to respond to my posts about that topic then the discussion we're having between us is on that topic.
You can stop now if you don't like it but I still hold >>571520 is wrong for reasons mentioned >>571551
Atheists - you claim that yours is the position that doesn't have the burden of proof ("we don't believe in a God"), but then what about your position on existence itself?
Non-existence is the more logical result given our scientific understanding of creation, yet here we are. How do you refute the point that something exists, therefore it must've come from somewhere? In this instance, the burden of proof lies on you.
>I tell you why that's wrong
No you fucking didn't. You pointed out that there are worldviews that are atheistic. That doesn't change the fact that atheism itself is not a worldview, but a rejection of a worldview.
And no, I'm not fucking wrong. You cannot defend a negative claim, which atheism is (no, atheism is not inherently tied to materialism, or egoism, or humanism, or what have you, though those are all atheistic ideologies), get this through your fucking thick-ass skull.
>How do you refute the point that something exists, therefore it must've come from somewhere?
How do you prove it came from your god? Why do theists always strawman atheists think nothing exploded into everything.
>doesn't understand the physical meaning of "nothing"
>doesn't know why inflationary big bang is widely accepted in academia
>tries to set up strawmen against physics and not atheism
Personally I'm agnostic but this is one of the more pathetic arguments coming from theists.
Atheists don't say something, which could be a completely impersonal, non-intelligent phenomenon, like the big bang, didn't create the universe. They say god didn't create the universe. God is not synonymous with phenomenon that created universe.
I wrapped up the confusion here >>571615
>I'm not sure if this is because you're trying to do an end-run around the logical problem here and you really don't like atheists, or if you're just trying to forward some point you're fond of and this seemed like a good thread to piggyback it on
For me, I have issue that the discussion is JUST theist/atheist (I have the same problem in conflicting theist/theist arguments) as that is hilariously, hilariously vague. That discussion involves many discussions of proving metaphysical systems to be the case but with little work to explain the worldviews as a whole which simply leads to confusion and not much productivity. I think it's more efficient to explain each other's worldviews to one another (to some degree) so we can understand what major claims the person has and precisely what that means. I find it horrible that people on either side of the debate don't bother to say what they mean by god when stating they do or don't believe in such a thing. The lack of clarity is sickening.
>Rejection of a positive claim that lacks evidence is not another kind of positive claim that requires evidence.
Agreed, but as I said before is about worldviews themselves, that can run into multiple other views down the line. By rejecting (or simply not believing in) gods, what do you mean you do not believe to be there?
I'm keenly interested in discussing worldviews in depth so we can understand the views of the people around us rather than if we believe in something called a "god" or not, despite the lack of clarity on what that is called.
yes. it does.
But atheists aren't making any claim.
Atheists are people who do not claim god exists. There is no burden of proof for not making any claim.
your agnosticism is actually making a claim: that there is a possibility of a thing being real.
Atheism is a null hypothesis. There's nothing to actually prove.
No, it really might as well not be. All you're doing is claiming the big bang, or whatever creation event, was god. God has a fairly specific meaning and many many implications. Reducing god to creation phenomenon is removing the part the separates god from a phenomenon.
The agnostic claim is that god is unknowable.
If an agnostic were presented with miracles and proof of god, an agnostic would claim they must be the work of man or have some other explanation besides god, because god is unknowable, and anything that would lead to knowing god must be false.
>no, atheism is not inherently tied to...
Obviously. I am making a claim about worldviews themselves in line with my logic originally posted >>571479
You seem focused on saying I'm wrong about needing to prove atheism (in itself) as an affirmative, which I haven't argued at all, but rather originally chimed in to your point saying that you are right until the atheist defends his worldview as true, thus making the positive claim rather than simply lacking a belief. At that point the atheist must defend parts of his worldview while still evading theism. And as I've said, this gets us into explaining things and reality itself, the most common of which being the discussion of Existential Inertia v. Divine Conservation.
This is not "prove God doesn't exist", this is "explain your worldview without having divinity in it".
>That doesn't change the fact that atheism itself is not a worldview, but a rejection of a worldview.
Theism is itself not a worldview but takes part in a collection of different worldviews, just as atheism does.
I chimed in about worldviews, you began discussing worldviews with me and then got upset that we were discussing worldviews. I did not ask you to respond to me.
I love it when people make the argument that God is unknowable. I just ask "how do you know that?" and they skip over it or begin to trip over themselves. It's clear they simply want to ignore discussion.
>believes nor disbeliefs
Disbelief is the lack of belief.
>People in real life already claim that sort of things as proof of aliens. It clearly doesn't show if God exists or not.
These sort of things don't exist in real life. Ancient Aliens hing entirely on ancient man-made structures and go "it was technologically impossible for humans back then", even though it usually wasn't.
I am talking about the Creation being drawn in comic form on the moon visible to the naked eye from Earth, the human genome sounding like "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news’” when placed on a sound synthesizer with blueprints discovered on Mars surface, or every major mountain range containing a representation of the Ten Commandments. Things that couldn't possibly be made by humans.
FTFY. I'm an atheist because I acknowledge that I don't have faith in a god or gods. It's not because I claim with certainty that god can't possibly exists. Knowledge does not enter into it, only faith does.
>*just happens* to look exactly like us, having made us "in his image"
Why doesn't anyone understand Imagio Dei properly?
It simply means you are what sci-fi mistakenly calls "sentient", and philosophy calls "sapient".
You have faith in the idea that God DOESN'T exist.
Why do atheists think that "faith" is bad?
Everyone has faith.
When you go to the hospital, you have faith they know what they're doing.
When you go to the dentist, you have faith that he knows what he's doing.
When you get into your car, you have faith that the car will function as intended.
When you get into a plane, you have faith that it will bring you where you intend to go.
Christians have reasonable faith, because it is backed up by theological, philosophical, historical and scientific arguments.
Atheists have BLIND faith. They BLINDLY believe there is no creator, without any evidence to support that claim.
>Atheists have BLIND faith. They BLINDLY believe there is no creator, without any evidence to support that claim.
Except that's wrong and you're retarded. I don't have faith in god not existing, I just don't think that's a likely scenario given the philosophical and scientific implications.
Meanwhile, Christians have unreasonable faith based on a book full of contradictions. Whether god exists or not, Christians - at least the vast majority of them - are wrong.
I don't believe there is a god because it is a small, nonsensical, emotional human explanation for the grandest mystery of them all.
And it still doesn't explain what created God.
If any sapient entity created our universe I'd place my bets on a team of scientists creating universes as some kind of experiment
C.S. Lewis already debunked your argument.
Read "Mere Christianity" or watch the CSLewisDoodles channel on YouTube.
>what created God
Everything comes from something. Every effect has a cause. This is a law of logic and a fact of science. Christians believe that God created the universe and everything in it. God is the cause of everything that exists. But, doesn't God also need a cause? What caused God to come into existence? Who created God? These questions are often used by critics in an attempt to discredit the idea that God created the universe. If God is the cause of the universe, then what is the cause that resulted in God?
The problem with this argument is that it is built on a faulty assumption. It is not true that everything has a cause. From nothing, nothing comes. If there was ever a time when nothing existed, nothing would have ever come into existence. There had to be an uncaused cause that caused everything else to come into existence. You can't go from absolutely nothing to something, so there must have always been a something. That something, or more accurately, someone, is God.
God is the uncaused cause that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it (Genesis 1:1). The question "Who created God?" is invalid at its core because it rests on the faulty assumption that God is subject to the laws of the universe that He created. Yes, now, everything has a cause. Yes, now, something cannot come from nothing. But, without the first uncaused cause, nothing else would exist. God is the One who set everything into motion, including the logical and scientific fact that every effect has a cause.
The "Who created God?" question is deceiving because it is based on the false assumption that God came from somewhere. If God was created, then He is not the sovereign, eternal, infinite, and all-powerful God who is described in the Bible. That is the true reality behind the question. It is an attack on the Christian faith's understanding of God. But, the question/attack is invalid at its very core. God as the Creator is not bound by the laws of what He has created. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists, and always has, and always will.
Atheism is illogical because it implies that we have been wrong for thousands of years.
It implies that mankind was suffering from a mass delusion, and that only in the 19th century did we "know better".
This is why atheists have such a cocky attitude, they suffer from a superiority complex.
They want to escape accountability and the idea that their actions have consequences. So they simply shout "God doesn't exist!" in a piss-poor attempt to reject thousands of years of theology, philosophy and actual supernatural events.
Atheism is a cancer that turns people into degenerate, nihilist savages.
When you con yourself into thinking you're nothing but an animal, you start acting like an animal.
The worst part is that these materialists, naturalists, humanists and pythagoreans don't even know they are being used by occult societies to further a satanic agenda.
Atheists are nothing but useful idiots. Satan's chess pieces in the conflict against truth.
>Agnostic: Maybe or I will neither confirm nor deny
So I ask the agnostic: Do you believe that the total number of grains of sand on Earth is even?
"Maybe or I will neither confirm nor deny."
Do you believe the total number of grains of sand on the Earth is odd?
"Maybe or I will neither confirm nor deny."
Ah, then we have come to the root of the problem. Confusion arises because of the implicature of a set phrase: "I don't believe X". Colloquially, if I say "I don't believe it will rain tomorrow" I am actually expressing a belief - the belief that it WILL NOT rain tomorrow. I'm not usually outlining some negative absence of belief that it will rain tomorrow, some agnosticism concerning the matter. So we rephrase, and ask the agnostic:
Is it true to say that you believe the total number of grains of sand on Earth is even?
Is it, therefore, true to say that you believe the total number is odd?
And so we ask the agnostic: Is it true to say that you believe at least one god exists?
And there we have it. We can add that it is, presumably, not true to say that the agnostic believes no gods exist, of course. But the important part has already been taken care of.
To the contrary, it proves Christianity correct.
What used to be a blur of superstition became cleared up with monotheism.
The various pagan 'gods' were the fallen angels/nephilim described in the Bible.
Pagan cultures speak of a creator and an adversary, just as the Bible does. Satan goes by many names such as Baal, Molech, Prometheus, Belzebub, Kronos, Saturn, etc.
God is known as Logos, Adonai, Jehovah, etc.
Over 200 ancient global flood stories, all describe a similar catastrophical event as depicted in the Bible. The ancient Chinese even mention 8 people surviving the flood.
They speak of a flood, creation of the world, demons/unclean spirits and good spirits, etc.
>frameworks of philosophy are all absolutely right like religious claim god is
Nice try, retard. I'll give you points for thinking of something slightly less retarded than the other things. Maybe one day you'll know what truth is.
Some skeptics resort to the accusation that God is imaginary. In other words, they would argue God is simply a creation of our own imagination rather than a real Being. Entire websites like godisimaginary.com exist solely to advance the idea that God is a human creation rather than humans as a creation of God.
However, the logic of those who claim God is imaginary is limited and flawed. First, the only completely accurate way to claim God is imaginary would be to know for certain that God does not exist. Logically, humans are limited beings and do not and cannot know all things. Therefore, humans cannot know for certain whether God is imaginary. At best, a person can claim God might be imaginary and argue reasons why such a claim is possible.
Second, to claim God is imaginary requires an alternative sufficient claim to explain the known universe and all created things. In other words, if God did not create the universe and everything in it, who or what did? The universe is eternal, it is created, or it is an illusion. If the universe is not an illusion and it is not eternal, then the only other option is that it has been created. This Creator or First Cause is what Christians call God.
Third, to claim God is imaginary is to dismiss the many claims regarding God and the supernatural in this world. While there are certainly many inaccurate claims regarding God and the supernatural, the evidence leans toward a universe in which miracles can and do happen. If miracles have happened, then the existence of God is possible. Why? The supernatural cannot take place without some kind of supernatural power or supernatural Being.
Fourth, to claim God is imaginary overlooks the vast evidence regarding the complexity of design in the universe. From the information "coded" within the human cell to the vast complexity of the known universe, there is an amazing level of intelligence within the design of the universe that at least points to the existence of some type of Designer.
Fifth, the universal sense of morality points toward the likely existence of a moral God. While humans differ regarding certain rights and wrongs, all humans live by certain moral standards. This internal sense of right and wrong points toward an ultimate maker of right and wrong that again suggests an ultimate being or ultimate moral lawmaker we know as God.
To argue God is imaginary assumes far too much wisdom and dismisses many lines of evidence that support the existence of an ultimate Creator, Designer, Moral Lawgiver, and Supernatural Being in the universe. Those who genuinely consider the facts will at least be open to a Creator God and consider who this Creator is, opening discussion regarding the view of the God of the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ.
I see one side (Christians) making good arguments and presenting their side.
I see the other side (atheists) just shitposting, using logical fallacies or simply ignoring the arguments given.
I come to the conclusion that atheism is a mental illness. It's a cop-out to escape responsibility and accountability.
choosing to not believe in something does not require an alternative theory to be put forward. you just dont believe it
making claims that something is fact however DOES require you to back up your claims
>To the contrary, it proves atheism correct.
>What used to be a blur of superstition became cleared up with skepticism.
>The 'god' of the Bible were the collective wishes and desires by fallible men.
>Abrahmic cultures speak of narratives, just we've always structured our lives. Knowing this gave us powers over them
>God is known as our own desired self-image
>Over 200 ancient global flood stories, all describe a similar catastrophical event as depicted in the Bible. This exposes our minds as pattern seekers, even if this doesn't need to be a pattern.
>They speak of a flood, creation of the world, demons/unclean spirits and good spirits, etc., even if the dots we 'connect' may be highly dubious, which gives us more knowledge about ourselves and how elaborate the ways we fool ourselves are
See? I can play this game just as well
Not really. They have been right about the existence of the transcendent, they just had different ideas of it. Atheists deny the existence of the transcendent at all because they can't perceive it with scientific positivism.
Christians are people who say that tomato soup is objectively the best, while other faiths say that different soups are better, and that you should probably decide it yourself. Atheists are people who claim that no such thing as a soup exists, because you can't eat it with a fork.
>All religions are illogical because they imply that the vast majority of people have always been and still are wrong.
Yes, because all religions are Abrahamic and claim that all other religions are false. In fact, scratch the first part, because there are Abrahamic religions that are not exclusivist.
>just conveniently ignore them and claim bs.
That's because they are. There isn't a single concept defined consistently, and none of the claims you make are testable.
I refuse to waste my time on pseudo-scientific babble
Truth isn't a popularity contest. 9 people saying that different things happened doesn't mean any of them are correct. That doesn't mean the 10th person is correct either, but you can't just ignore the differences between different accounts or that the similarities make one of the accounts correct unless you can prove they're all derived from the same account.
"I won't believe anything before I have proof" is an impossible and intellectually dishonest approach to the world. Every single person holds a wide variety of unqualified assumptions and opinions that let them function in daily life. By studying deeply we can remove our assumption in perhaps several fields, but there is simply not enough time and resources to achieve some imaginary "blank state".
Some of the things humanity holds most dear are almost wholly based on belief and hope, such as love and friendship.
>First, the only completely accurate way to claim God is imaginary would be to know for certain that God does not exist.
>Second, to claim God is imaginary requires an alternative sufficient claim
>Third, to claim God is imaginary is to dismiss the many claims regarding God and the supernatural in this world.
"To claim God is imaginary is to claim God is imaginary". This is groundbreaking shit.
>Fourth, to claim God is imaginary overlooks the vast evidence regarding the complexity of design in the universe.
Complexity does not entail design. We are predisposed cognitively to ascribing intent to complex structures because that assumption has historically proven useful - a false positive of intentionality is, on the whole, far less costly (ie, apt to get you killed) than a false negative. Much, much better to mistake the rustling of tree-branches for the footsteps of approaching enemies than to mistake the footsteps of approaching enemies for the rustling of tree-branches.
>Fifth, the universal sense of morality points toward the likely existence of a moral God.
No, it doesn't. A complete non-sequitur.
>le "magical sky fairy" meme
Let me guess, you believe you came from a monkey which came from a fish which came from soup.
Evolutionism is the most laughable religion in the world. It's also been debunked.
Your "refutation" of an argument was simply "No" without any elaboration or presenting a counter-argument.
You think you're smart but you end up looking like a total retard.
It's obvious you don't really care about the truth regarding the subject, you just want to fling shit and assault the Christian faith.
I tend to be sympathetic towards religious metaphysics, but to say that providing sufficient proof for atheists is impossible, is just bullshit.
If God reincarnated himself in a manner that the NT describes, did miracles and caused angelic beings to descend on him, most people would be perfectly convinced that Christianity is true. Someone's salvation shouldn't depend on the convenient absence of observable supernatural events.
>he doesn't know about how animals that fly are relatively light and that wings to make a horse fly would probably be so large that they would create drag even when folded while running
why do people conect atheism with evolution so much? whats the connection?
if some 19th century biologist never put together that set of concepts would you seriously stil believe in god?
does the reality you live each day not teach you god is imaginary?
do you need a scientific theory about the history of christian saints and european mythology to understand santa claus isnt real?
besides, hindu creationists, for example, have no problem with the concept, and it would confirm pre-christian myths about shit arising trough a gradual proces from utter chaos etc etc... so it doesnet realy 'disprove' anything its just a current theory in biology, it is as meaningfull in this context as plate techtonics or the official status of pluto
>Evolutionism is the Greatest Deception
>Kent Hovind debunks Evolution
>Hovind destroys an atheist critic
>Evolution is a modern myth
>The Greatest Lie Ever Told
>Overwhelming Evidence for a Global Flood
>Dinosaurs are not millions of years old
Because the idea of being an animal that came from a rock 9 gorillion years ago, provides an alternative and easy escape from the Biblical story of creation.
Catholicism was falling apart due to the Reformation and revival of Christianity.
So the Freemasons/Illuminati worked quickly to create the cult of evolutionism to counter the Reformation.
Reformation, if anything, is the final coffin for Christians. I'd be willing to believe God set up a divine source of authority and wisdom so humans can always have a final answer and sense of identity.
With Protestantism, there is an absurd variety of mutually exclusive interpretations that are impossible to reconcile since they all claim inspiration from the holy spirit. The best someone can do is choose a denomination that fits his worldview, but that invalidates the truth of Christianity already.
>it would take many lifetimes
Look at the amounts of dog variations we have, and dog breeding is a very recent thing.
There is a clear limit.
Horses can't grow wings because they don't have the genetic code to do that.
its the platform newatheists stand on
does anyone believe there were no atheists in the world before origin of species was published, or that simply living life in this reality isnt itself the best reason to stop believing in gods and afterlives?
its absolutely impossible there were no people in each and every generation that understood what a imaginary concept is
Here's a lesson from the greatest logician of the 20th century:
Some paths have a gradual increase in utility for the function you want. Winged horses wouldn't be like that. They would have to get much worse at running before they would be able to fly at all.
Yeah, the pure Christianity that is entirely a historical invention and with doctrines that no early christian would acknowledge, because they are modernist heresies.
Tell me this: Why do Protestants pay lip-service to the Councils and certain Church Fathers?
>Horses can't grow wings
You mean they can't do it easily or within a similar alotted as minimal breed variations. Perhaps I should point out, things have wings. Think about that conceptually for a moment.
Also this is one gigantic troll thread of retards anyway.
there is no reason to suppose a creator, we have no idea how the universe would look like if there was no creator, or if it was, there's only one universe we know of, and is this one.
we cant compare how a world with or without a god would look like, it is more reasonable to take the least amount of assumptions possible, more is the case if we have no evidence of such a god existing.
Horses can never grow wings because THEY DON'T HAVE THE GENETIC CODE.
DNA does not *magically* grow new code.
I find it ironic atheists use "magic sky wizard" insult when they themselves believe in a magic force that drives evolution.
Natural selection SELECTS.
It doesn't make you turn into a different creature.
but imagine the nightmarish absurdity of a reality that was actualy purposefuly made this way by a personal creator
just imagine the horror of it... all this shit, actualy made, on purpose, by some hubris filled myopic asshole, and were supposed to call him 'god' and actualy worship the fucktard
Mutations are harmful, not benevolent.
Secondly, an animal with a mutation won't survive long in the wild.
Thirdly, you would need 2 animals with the exact same mutation in order to breed.
Lastly, our body can self-repair.
Genetic code mutates. Your horse example is poor. There would be a small amount of the horse population that would not necessarily "fly" per say, but would instead evade their environmental hazards (predators, lack of food, etc.) via a mutation. As the horses with the mutation continue to breed, the mutation would be passed down the genetic line. There have been loads of species with mutations that haven't done anything useful that have died. Some species retain random mutations that don't perform a necessary function to this day.
No, there have always been true Christians even during the darkest hours of the Papacy.
And who do you think all those people burned at the stakes were, during the inquisition?
Estimates are that over 50 million Christians were murdered by the RCC.
There have always been Christians who were not part of that system, or were due to fear.
I'd honestly be willing to respect a Creator even if he wasn't some omnipotent, morally perfect being. He could be a flawed programmer dude, I guess. But he'd have to interact with his creation, to help us out and assure us he is there. At least something, so we can't spend all our life doubting and fighting wars about metaphysical systems.
But there is nothing talking to us, just emptiness and wishful thinking. The Supreme Being is either nothing humans can relate to, or it doesn't care.
At some point, creating apologies for him and explaining how he is totally involved and how can you be so selfish? - just get old.
>Why don't they breed horses with wings?
Show us the horse with wings, that can be bred to make the wings bigger and stronger.
Alternatively, it might be the case that you know absolutely nothing about biology or evolution, and are making comments that simply show you to be astoundingly ignorant.
>Mutations are harmful, not benevolent.
Mutations can be harmful, or they can be benevolent, or they can be neither. And even harmful mutations can survive for a long time, and under some circumstances turn to be beneficial. It's not as if having heterochromia makes you fall over dead instantly.
>Secondly, an animal with a mutation won't survive long in the wild.
See above. For that matter, mutations happen ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Stop thinking about Fallout type supermutants.
>Thirdly, you would need 2 animals with the exact same mutation in order to breed.
This, also, is wrong, otherwise only identical twins could breed. Having a mutation does not inherently make someone unable to breed.
>Lastly, our body can self-repair.
Indeed it can, but the DNA repair mechanisms - magnificent as they are - are not perfect. Just like being wounded leaves a scar, occasionally DNA repair and copy mechanisms make errors.
>Evolutionism is the Greatest Deception
>Kent Hovind debunks Evolution
>Hovind destroys an atheist critic
>Evolution is a modern fairy tale
>The Greatest Lie Ever Told
>Evidence for a Global Flood
>Dinosaurs are not millions of years old
God damn this is pasta or at least elements of it are.
1. There is no evidence to conclude that god does exist as described by any religion that ascribes attributes to god. From this can easily be concluded that god is imaginary in most if not all aspects for most if not all given religions even if one does not simply dismiss god for lack of evidence.
2. There is no required replacement. God was proposed as a solution without evidence so it can be dismissed without evidence as anything else is equally valid provided that any positive claims it makes can't be disproven.
3. Even assuming the supernatural does exist does not prove god.
Just because something that can cause supernatural events to happen exists does not mean everything else that is supernatural exists as well.
4. Designer argument is retarded. The significant majority of the DNA in your cells is garbage. It does not do anything. It does not encode for anything.
Complexity can arise from simple rules (Where rules really aren't hard rules that anything follows but just results of how things interact) and simple states.
5. Retarded. People thinking that something can be either right or wrong does not point to a universal lawmaker.
And finally your arrive at your conclusion.
Your vaguely proposed god has become the gateway drug to your god in particular.
Worst part of claiming god is real is that it requires validating and verifying information you simply can't have access to at all, not don't have access to, can't. It's actually 100% impossible to state with any certainty or credibility that god does exist regardless of the circumstances. It's worse to even attribute concepts to such a being with no line of valid logical reasoning to do so.
I sometimes wonder what sort of a horrible accident people must've had to cause sufficient brain damage to think these videos "destroy" evolution / atheism / whatever
>Socialism, communism, marxism
Which is why the communists all backed Lamarckism and denied genetics while still enforcing Atheism.
They plugged their ears and continued to believe that any deafness they earned drilling their fingers into their ear canals would be passed on to their descendants.
1. Mutations can be anything.
2. Animals have 2 chromosomes of each type (sex chromosomes aside because XY is possible) there is redundancy. Bacteria multiply quickly and pass DNA around.
3. No you don't.
4. Self repair is not flawless. In fact one of the bigger repair mechanisms which is homologous recombination (fixes double strand breaks) just promotes increased variety.
>tfw you secretly hope someone LEGITIMATELY disproves evolution
anyone know that feel?
While the nitty gritty details of evolution are up for discussion and we can't even answer why evolution exists, there is just too much objective and empirical science stating that evolution, by some definition, exists.