Atheists and Man on the Moon:
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-03-2010, 03:47 PM
 
Atheists and Man on the Moon:
Atheists will do anything to justify their disbelief in God because if God does exists they would have to answer to Him at some point and they would have to alter their life here, and they are not willing to do that.

If you hate the Jews, then you might believe that the holocaust didn’t really happen or that the Nazis had a moon base and went there as early as 1942. If you hate the Government you might think that 9/11 was planned by the government, or that we didn’t really land on the moon, or the CIA killed Kennedy, U.S. military caused the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami etc. Same thing with atheists, because of you not wanting to be under Gods authority you believe the equally ridiculous things such as evolution, Jesus not existing etc.

This somewhat a dumb comment, But if I could take the God out of creation, or let's switch positions and theists believe in evolution and atheists believe in some sort of creationism, I am sure you people would laugh at the idea of evolution. Urey-Miller in 1952 under hypothetical conditions, made some amino acids, that is a far cry from your body today. Take a fly, some flies only live for one hour. They have less than 60 minutes to find a partner, mate, find a place to lay eggs and die. The evolutionary process takes between 3,500 million years to 250-300 million years to occur (who knows). What is the likely hood that not one, but two of these flies would evolve within one hour of each other in a 3,500 million year process? If that isn't enough, consider the fact that you can't both evolve with the same sex. So once again your position is challenged with the amazing odds of having two flies with the exact same genetic makeup, the exact same place on earth (within a few hundred feet - a few inches in some species) one must be male and one female, and the exact same point in history from a random 3,500 million year process. If you have 2 males, 2 females, or any difference in genetic makeup, the insect dies and there is no second chance. This process must be duplicated for every single living thing. It’s the same thing with humans, I am supposed to believe that one day I looked down and said “wow! Penis nice, if I could only find a vagina this day will be great” Guys you can’t laid now in a bar full of women, you really think that you are going to be able to find a girl on the earth, when you have no job and no car no bath and you haven’t shaved ever? Just kidding. But there is truth in that. If I live 70ish years and I am the only guy that sprouted a penis mutation I have to find a girl with the vagina mutation in the period of time that she can reproduce before I die or my penis mutation would die with me.

But don’t believe me how about Charles Darwin `As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?" or this one "Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." –Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

If Jesus didn’t exist, then why would, in the supposed year of His birth, the world says BC and AD for the calendar, I know there are some who changed it to CE or BCE but the happened in the 1600’s. If I quote historians about Jesus, then I get responses saying that the historians are in dispute. Just like if I show pictures and footage of the moon landing people will say it was on a Hollywood soundstage.

That’s enough for now. BTW still believe there are only agnostics.
Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2010, 05:05 PM
RE: Atheists and Man on the Moon:
(02-03-2010 03:47 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Atheists will do anything to justify their disbelief in God because if God does exists they would have to answer to Him at some point and they would have to alter their life here, and they are not willing to do that.

No.
For the most part, atheists' behavior is identical to believers'. To become theist would require only a tiny change - go to church on Sunday, maybe. Not really a big deal.
We don't disbelieve because we don't want there to be a god. We disbelieve because we don't see a reason to believe, the same way that we don't see a need to believe in leprechauns.

Quote:If you hate the Jews, then you might believe that the holocaust didn’t really happen or that the Nazis had a moon base and went there as early as 1942. If you hate the Government you might think that 9/11 was planned by the government, or that we didn’t really land on the moon, or the CIA killed Kennedy, U.S. military caused the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami etc. Same thing with atheists, because of you not wanting to be under Gods authority you believe the equally ridiculous things such as evolution, Jesus not existing etc.

Except that the conspiracy theories you mention have zero supporting evidence. With atheism, you have switched the situation around. Evolution, the lack of a flood, et cetera... all of that is backed by the evidence. Theism is not.

Quote:This somewhat a dumb comment, But if I could take the God out of creation, or let's switch positions and theists believe in evolution and atheists believe in some sort of creationism, I am sure you people would laugh at the idea of evolution.

Aside from this being an entirely hypothetical situation which would probably never exist, you're making an unfounded assumption - that our belief in evolution is caused by our atheism. It isn't. I know many atheists who don't believe in evolution. What they do believe in is off-the-wall, spaz-out crazy, but it ain't evolution.

Quote:Urey-Miller in 1952 under hypothetical conditions, made some amino acids, that is a far cry from your body today.

You're ignoring evolution.

Quote:Take a fly, some flies only live for one hour. They have less than 60 minutes to find a partner, mate, find a place to lay eggs and die. The evolutionary process takes between 3,500 million years to 250-300 million years to occur (who knows). What is the likely hood that not one, but two of these flies would evolve within one hour of each other in a 3,500 million year process?

Straw man.
The flies wouldn't have to evolve at the same time, nor both be fruit flies. The first fruit fly could have been born of another species, then mated with a member of its parent species. Their genes would be close enough together so that the other species could bear fruit fly young.
Please, do some research on evolution before you try and bash it.

Quote:If that isn't enough, consider the fact that you can't both evolve with the same sex.

So?
You're assuming that everything has to happen suddenly, that one day a fruit fly has to be born with a penis and another to be born with a vagina (or whatever the fruit fly equivalents are). First of all, this is untrue because they wouldn't both have to be fruit flies, only members of two species close enough to mate and with sufficient mutation chance to produce fruit flies; secondly, fruit flies were not the first to develop sex, and the first organisms to use sexual reproduction would likely not have had that short of a life span; and thirdly, the evolution of sexual organs does not have to happen suddenly. There are organisms which can act as both male and female.

Quote:But don’t believe me how about Charles Darwin `As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?" or this one "Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." –Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

Blatant quote-mine.

Quote:If Jesus didn’t exist, then why would, in the supposed year of His birth, the world says BC and AD for the calendar, I know there are some who changed it to CE or BCE but the happened in the 1600’s.

Argument ad populum, argument from authority. The fact that people believed in Christianity enough to build a calendar around it does not validate it. If that works, then the Mayan religion is true. After all, they made a calendar around their religion.

Quote:If I quote historians about Jesus, then I get responses saying that the historians are in dispute.

And evidence that they have either been fabricated or that they don't support what you say they do.

Quote:That’s enough for now. BTW still believe there are only agnostics.

BTW, still an atheist.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2010, 06:41 PM
 
RE: Atheists and Man on the Moon:
1. Not even close to be true, going to church means nothing. Saying you believe in God and are under His authority has nothing to do with “going to church”. A church is a building only. I swim in the ocean doesn’t make me a fish. You disbelieve because you don’t want to be under Gods authority
2. You can’t make blanket statements “zero supporting evidence” say they don’t have supporting evidence because you don’t believe it
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread237245/pg1
http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/...dence.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw
3. I am not ignoring evolution, Darwin had questions, I talked about evolution multiple times.
4. Don’t know what you mean by that
5. You said you were in college in one post, so I am assuming you just finished a class in debate or logic, because you apply your fallacies wrong and most true debaters don’t use them anyway. Argument from authority-what authority did I site? Argument ad populum- If I say that AVATAR is the best movie of all time, that is Argument ad populum. Because I may differ on the term “BEST MOVIE” it is subjective. If I say AVATAR is the highest grossing moving of all time you can’t say Argument ad populum. I said that AD and BC are because of the birth of Jesus. That is a truth claim, so it is true or false. It cannot be true for me and not for you. (you know the rule of logic, but it bores people to have to look it up) So, if Jesus didn’t exist as you say and He is figment of some storytelling, why would the calendar change?

6. You just proved my point, I said” If I quote historians about Jesus, then I get responses saying that the historians are in dispute.” You said, “And evidence that they have either been fabricated or that they don't support what you say they do”.
7. Agnostic
If you were able to read my post and “Unbeliever” comments you see he proves my point exactly. BTW “unbeliever” Once you get some debating experience you will drop the fallacies, watch some debates with Dawkins or any other agnostic and you will see they rarely use them, it bores people. Why don’t you write and post and let me comment instead of only commenting on others. Get some balls because according to your position if you don’t use them you will lose them.
Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2010, 06:46 PM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2010 07:30 PM by ashley.hunt60.)
RE: Atheists and Man on the Moon:
I'm amazed at how quickly and thoroughly Unbeliever calls you out. A thumbs up to Unbeliever.

As for your first paragraph, trust me, if I knew god was real, and that hell really was waiting for me, I be convert faster than you can blink. It's not me being lazy, but just me thinking. Using common sense, those lovely things.

Second paragraph; goes with the first nicely, good transition. But still completely inaccurate. I don't believe things based on my hatred. I don't like the Nazis, but I don't believe that Hitler returned from the grave to cause the Haiti earthquake. If we worked like that, our world would be very different.

Your third paragraph shows your ignorance towards evolution. A bug just don't fly out of a cease pool. You don't get such a radical mutation that causes an animals to be so different from it's parents that it can't reproduce with it's population. Evolution is gradual change. Even the claims of rapid evolution still use very long periods of time.

Fourth one is quote-mined. But another thing, if some record popped up that proved without a shadow of a doubt that Darwin didn't accept evolution, that still wouldn't change my mind. Unless he had some pretty impressive evidence to back that claim up, it wouldn't matter. It would just be another hollow claim, and thus worthless. In the logical world, no one exempt from the evidence rule.

Fifth one. Lots of different time systems based on myths. The Chinese calenders, with the twelve year cycles, each with an animal, what does that mean?

BTW, by your logic, your an agnostic too, since no one on the face of this earth has absolute knowledge of the universe, and thus no one can say definitely, like you are demanding, whether or not god exists.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2010, 06:58 PM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2010 07:02 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Atheists and Man on the Moon:
(02-03-2010 06:41 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  1. Not even close to be true, going to church means nothing. Saying you believe in God and are under His authority has nothing to do with “going to church”. A church is a building only.

Well, fine. If all it takes is belief, then there would need to be pretty much zero alteration in our lives. I was assuming that we had to fully convert, including the rituals. Whatever.

Quote:I swim in the ocean doesn’t make me a fish. You disbelieve because you don’t want to be under Gods authority

And you're making entirely baseless assertions about our motives with zero evidence.

Quote:2. You can’t make blanket statements “zero supporting evidence” say they don’t have supporting evidence because you don’t believe it
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread237245/pg1
http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/...dence.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw

I'm not here to argue conspiracy theories with you, but the fact that you linked to ATS kinda puts me off. I spend a little time there, and I know what a crazy house that place is.

Quote:3. I am not ignoring evolution, Darwin had questions, I talked about evolution multiple times.

I know. But you were ignoring evolution in that specific instance. Evolution explains how we get from those amino acids to humans.

Quote:4. Don’t know what you mean by that

I'm pretty sure you accidentally switched around three and four here, so I'll go by that.
I mean that not all atheists believe in evolution. I have met - well, online, anyway - atheists who believe that life always existed, that life is some supernatural force, that the entire universe is alive, who believe that the entire universe was created last Tuesday, et cetera.

Quote:5. You said you were in college in one post

Yep. Just out of curiosity, though, what is your level of education, and what logic classes have you taken?

Quote:so I am assuming you just finished a class in debate or logic

Nope.

Quote:because you apply your fallacies wrong

Show one instance in which I have.

Quote:and most true debaters don’t use them anyway.

Bollocks. They don't name them the way I have, but they recognize them just the same, and call their opponents out on them.

Quote:Argument from authority-what authority did I site?

The authority of the people who established the calendar.

Quote:Argument ad populum- If I say that AVATAR is the best movie of all time, that is Argument ad populum. Because I may differ on the term “BEST MOVIE” it is subjective. If I say AVATAR is the highest grossing moving of all time you can’t say Argument ad populum. I said that AD and BC are because of the birth of Jesus. That is a truth claim, so it is true or false. It cannot be true for me and not for you. (you know the rule of logic, but it bores people to have to look it up)

It doesn't matter whether it can be true for you and not for me.
And yes, you did commit the argument ad populum fallacy. You said that the fact that the calendar had been changed to match to Jesus' birth was evidence in favor of Christianity's truth. It isn't, because that is simply saying that, because people believed it, it must be true. That is the argument ad populum fallacy.

Quote:So, if Jesus didn’t exist as you say and He is figment of some storytelling, why would the calendar change?

Because they believed that he existed.

Quote:6. You just proved my point, I said” If I quote historians about Jesus, then I get responses saying that the historians are in dispute.” You said, “And evidence that they have either been fabricated or that they don't support what you say they do”.

Yes, and my point is that the historians are in dispute for good reason.

Quote:7. Agnostic

Atheist.

Quote:If you were able to read my post and “Unbeliever” comments you see he proves my point exactly.

Rolleyes

Quote:BTW “unbeliever” Once you get some debating experience you will drop the fallacies, watch some debates with Dawkins or any other agnostic and you will see they rarely use them, it bores people.

Doesn't make it any less valid. If the best objection you can raise is that "it's boring", you've lost.
Besides, I don't particularly care how Dawkins or other atheists conduct a debate. I am not Dawkins.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2010, 07:35 PM
 
RE: Atheists and Man on the Moon:
(02-03-2010 03:47 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  If that isn't enough, consider the fact that you can't both evolve with the same sex. So once again your position is challenged with the amazing odds of having two flies with the exact same genetic makeup, the exact same place on earth [...]
This process must be duplicated for every single living thing. It’s the same thing with humans, I am supposed to believe that one day I looked down and said “wow! Penis nice, if I could only find a vagina this day will be great” [...] If I live 70ish years and I am the only guy that sprouted a penis mutation I have to find a girl with the vagina mutation in the period of time that she can reproduce before I die or my penis mutation would die with me.

This only shows almost total lack of understanding of evolution. You don't grow a penis from one day to another. This reminded me of a funny quote I read at bash.org:
Quote://bash.org/?95326
<ajax> Some people...have the idea that evolution is a fucking system of...
<ajax> "oh i need flippers, i'd better grow some" type bullshit. Tongue
<ajax> It's more like "Oh shit look at that freak over there with the flippers hahaha OH SHIT I AM DROWNING OH GOD SAVE ME FLIPPER BOY".

Richard Dawkins Wrote:Mount Improbable is a metaphorical mountain. The height of that mountain stands for that very improbability. So on the top of the mountain, you can imagine perched the most complicated organ you can think of. It might be the human eye. And one side of the mountain has a steep cliff, a steep vertical precipice. And you stand at the foot of the mountain and you gaze up at this complicated thing at the heights, and you say, that couldn't have come about by chance, that's too improbable. And that's what is the meaning of the vertical slope. You could no more get that by sheer chance than you could leap from the bottom of the cliff to the top of the cliff in one fell swoop.

But if you go around the other side of the mountain, you find that there's not a steep cliff at all. There's a slow, gentle gradient, a slow, gentle slope, and getting from the bottom of the mountain to the top is an easy walk. You just saunter up it putting one step in front of the other, one foot in front of the other.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dawkin...wkins.html
Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2010, 08:20 PM
 
RE: Atheists and Man on the Moon:
The quote that Nahuel posted re: Mount Improbable is the BEST metaphor for explaining evolution. The problem of why theists don't believe it is probably because they have never climbed a mountain in their lives to understand the difference between a steep cliff and a gradual incline.

martinb59, I challenge you to a few things:

1. Proof that evolution is false. You keep stating that there is no 'proof'...now it's your turn to prove that there is 'proof' that it is false.
2. A statement from you denying that science has done nothing good in this world. If you are not willing to accept evolution by natural selection as an explanation for life on this planet, then you MUST, by definition, deny every other scientific application. This includes technology (the very computer you use to post your responses; the television you happily watch 700 Club and O'Reilly Factor on; the very car you drive to and from church), medicine (penicillin and other crucial antibiotics, CAT scans, X-rays, etc), physiology, biology, chemistry, virology, etc, etc, etc.
3. Your OWN definition of what an Atheist is...you keep calling us all agnostics, yet you haven't defined Atheism. Others have provided to you definitions, yet you blatantly ignore any reasoning (typical of theists to 'ignore' that which is truth).

Further to point number 2 above, if you deny all those other areas of science, you must also explain how you treat sickness (e.g. prayer?), how you get your news every day (e.g. divine revelation?) and, frankly, how in the world you manage to get your blog posts completed (last i checked, a typewriter doesn't translate to electronic signals, so I'm a bit flabergasted :huhSmile...

I may sound a bit facetious in my response here, but you have made yourself out to be someone who cannot be taken seriously. You make the same claims as every other theist I have ever come across. You make claims that don't have ANY backing, and when asked for proof, you run away with your tail between your legs.

It is YOU, my friend, who has to get serious with their response. If you are here to seriously debate theology, then do it. Otherwise, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2010, 08:44 PM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2010 09:39 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Atheists and Man on the Moon:
(02-03-2010 08:20 PM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  martinb59, I challenge you to a few things:

2. A statement from you denying that science has done nothing good in this world. If you are not willing to accept evolution by natural selection as an explanation for life on this planet, then you MUST, by definition, deny every other scientific application.

I'm not getting this. Can you explain it? martinb59 may deny evolution without denying the rest of science very easily - he can simply maintain that the evidence does not support evolution, and that evolution is the only necessarily false theory.

*shrugs*

It isn't exactly the most consistent or rational position, but I've met several theists who hold it.
In case you want to know where I learned how to construct a logical argument, martin, here you are: The JREF forums. The posters there are among the most intelligent on any forum, and the forum's stated mission is to promote logic, critical thinking and skepticism. It is one of the best places on the internet to learn critical thinking.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2010, 05:00 AM
 
RE: Atheists and Man on the Moon:
(02-03-2010 08:44 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(02-03-2010 08:20 PM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  martinb59, I challenge you to a few things:

2. A statement from you denying that science has done nothing good in this world. If you are not willing to accept evolution by natural selection as an explanation for life on this planet, then you MUST, by definition, deny every other scientific application.

I'm not getting this. Can you explain it? martinb59 may deny evolution without denying the rest of science very easily - he can simply maintain that the evidence does not support evolution, and that evolution is the only necessarily false theory.

*shrugs*

It isn't exactly the most consistent or rational position, but I've met several theists who hold it.
In case you want to know where I learned how to construct a logical argument, martin, here you are: The JREF forums. The posters there are among the most intelligent on any forum, and the forum's stated mission is to promote logic, critical thinking and skepticism. It is one of the best places on the internet to learn critical thinking.

Unbeliever, I see your point, but let me elaborate a bit on why I stated what I did...

I see evolution as the core foundation for all other knowledge in this world. Without our brains evolving over the centuries (nay, even the millenia before that), we wouldn't have much of anything nowadays. We would still be using bloodletting as a primary medical cure! We would still be trying to 'exorcise the demons' from anyone with psychiatric issues...Exclamation

The point is without evolution as an accepted fact, the only alternative is creation. Based on what I know about the bible (I am currently reading over it 'to better understand it'), we are expected to be unquestioning, unthinking automatons. I can't accept that...human beings are FAR MORE than what any religious text would ever give us credit for.

If a person denies evolution, then they deny all other advancements of human ingenuity. My challenge to theists in the past has been to abandon all things in their lives that were influenced/advanced by science. "If you cannot accept the core aspect of evolution, then you, by definition, cannot accept any other science"...wait for god to help you! Smile
Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2010, 05:41 AM
 
RE: Atheists and Man on the Moon:
Hi,

The atheist campaign is using the word 'science' to describe their own personal religion: ''atheism' (not science). The Marxists used to call their religion 'scientific socialism' - in other words trying to use a physical authority to give credibility to their belief. The 'science' which took people to the moon was developed within the religious framework of the Christian worldview - not atheism. The mathematics of calculus which took people to the moon was developed by Newton, who was not an atheist, but actually wrote three times as much on his religious beliefs than on his scientific interests. The country of America in the 1960's which put the people there is a mostly religous country. And the astronauts who went there were people of a Christian worldview. Unscientific atheism cannot take any credit for getting anyone to the moon. Yes the Russian atheists did later get into space, but they did so only by copying the science developed by Christians.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: