Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2016, 05:28 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
(10-10-2016 11:13 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  My least favourite creationist has been posting again. This time claiming that his religion is "more scientific" than atheism.

If you have a Flickr account you can see what he's on about here:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/3503436407...491298295/

Quote:1. The First Law of Thermodynamics says - there is no natural means by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the opposite - that matter/energy created itself, from nothing, by natural processes.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the First Law.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 1
Atheism 0
____________________________________________

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the energy potential and order of the universe is decreasing from an initial peak.

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the opposite - that energy potential naturally increased of its own accord to a peak, followed by a development of order.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Second Law.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 2
Atheism 0
_____________________________________________

3. Law of Cause and Effect says – every natural effect/event has a cause.

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

Atheists refuse to accept this law, and claim the opposite – that a natural, first cause of the universe was uncaused.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Law of Cause and Effect.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 3
Atheism 0
__________________________________________

4. The Law of Cause and Effect also says – that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The cause must always be adequate to produce the effect.

Christians fully accept this aspect of the law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the opposite – they propose that the universe originated from an uncaused, natural, first cause, which is obviously inadequate to produce the effect.
i.e. they propose a natural cause of the universe which would be grossly inferior to the totality of all the properties/qualities that exist in the universe, and thus incapable of being a first cause of the universe.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject this aspect of the Law of Cause and Effect.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 4
Atheism 0
___________________________________________

5. The Law of Biogenesis says – life cannot arise by natural processes from sterile matter.

Christians fully accept this well-established law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the exact opposite – they claim that life on Earth, and possibly, even on other planets, did arise by natural processes from sterile matter.
The Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.
Regardless of that fact, atheists stubbornly refuse to accept the well established, Law of Biogenesis and, perversely, have invented their own (unscientific) law which they call ‘abiogenesis’ to replace it.
Abiogenesis (which has no evidence to support it) says the complete opposite of the Law of Biogenesis. It says that matter/energy is inherently predisposed to create life of its own volition, when environmental conditions are conducive. Unsurprisingly, atheists cannot explain where this alleged predisposition of matter to produce life comes from, which is fatal to their idea of a purposeless universe?

Therefore, with regard to the origin of life, atheists reject the Law of Biogenesis

______________________________________________

Scientific compatibility score:
Christianity 5/5
Atheism 0/5
______________________________________________

So, which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?

Christianity fully accepts all natural laws, without reservation.

Atheism disregards or rejects any natural laws (or evidence) that contradict the atheist belief in naturalism.
Atheist (pagan-revivalist) naturalism credits natural entities with non-contingent, autonomous powers, which they clearly don't possess.

This means the answer to the question is ....
Christianity is more scientific than atheism.

Verdict ...
Christianity is compatible with science.
Atheism is an irrational, outdated, backward, enemy of science.

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

Essentially he either misrepresents science or makes up "science" to "prove" that his peculiar brand of christianity is scientific and rational, while atheism is false and unscientific.

Of course what he's doing is creating a strawman.

Neither atheism or Christianity have anything to do with science. Atheism being "a disbelief of lack of belief in god or gods - atheists can have any world view they like, any belief system they wish, any ideas, any culture. Atheists can even deny science if they like.

So the creationist - "Truth in science" - an oxymoron if there ever was - is trying to equate faith in a deity with knowledge of science.………. laughably preposterous. Even more preposterous is that he's trying to equate his own peculiar brand of Christianity with knowledge of science.

A screed such as this is an invitation for you to simply pick the most ridiculous parts of the bible and have him defend it.

The bible makes claims of the sun and stars being created after the Earth, languages being supernaturally created, and people living almost 1000 years.

Watch as they try to make these things sound plausible while claiming that their book is scientific.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
16-10-2016, 02:34 PM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
My response to his rather pathetic attempt to support his claims:

Quote:Well I deliberately set the bar very low for and you failed to even reach it. Can’t say I’m surprised though.

Let me remind you yet again that you made some claims and I explained about the burden of proof in my last post in the simplest manner possible. If you make a claim, you have to be able to substantiate that claim by providing evidence to support it. If you can’t then you fail to meet the burden of proof, then people will accuse you (quite rightly) of being dishonest…or “making-up-sh*t”.
So you’re now saying that it doesn’t matter about providing evidence for this claim. You’re saying that ”there is no reason whatsoever for any Christian to ever reject natural laws by virtue of Christian belief”. So let’s see where does it mention scientific laws in the bible? Because I can't find a single use of the words "science" or "scientific" anywhere in it, let alone anything about biogenesis or thermodynamics. Maybe you can provide the chapter and verse about where these are referred to in the bible? Was it in the Old or New Testament?

I’m also seriously concerned about your concept of proof, because if you were in a court of law and you accused someone of murder, you appear to believe that person can be convicted merely by the fact that everyone in the jury would accept your word for it. No evidence required!

So you fail to meet the burden of proof. Indeed you attempt to avoid meeting the burden of proof by making up yet more sh*t!
I also provided you with a definition of atheism from an authoritative, well respected source which rebuts your claims about the nature of atheism and its “relationship” with science. That rebuttal – from that well respected, authoritative source – is that atheism has nothing to do with science.

What do you do? You decide that you’re going to come up with your very own definition of atheism. You provide no citations or references to respected or authoritative sources. Indeed you make up yet more sh*t in an attempt to make a strawman.

Having failed once more you then try to reverse the burden of proof yet again!
And to top it all, you then decide that you’re going to misrepresent another Flickr member by quoting him to allege that he disputed the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you care to examine your quotation of his words, you’ll notice funny little squiggles at the end of each sentence. These are question marks. They invariably mean that he is asking you a question, not making a statement. Indeed the question he is asking you about snowflakes etc. is that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics operates in the manner you state, then should their formation not be impossible? He is asking you a question! We can explore your response to his question at a later date.

We can come on to the various “scientific laws” you’re quoting later but let’s pause for a moment to take stock.

You’ve made two claims for which you’ve been unable to provide any supporting evidence. Truth in science CREDIBILITY SCORE = -2

You’ve tried to avoid providing evidence for one claim by making up more “sh*”. Truth in science CREDIBILITY SCORE = -1

You’ve tried to avoid providing evidence for another claim by making another fallacious strawman argument. Truth in science CREDIBILITY SCORE = -1

You’ve then tried to reverse the burden of proof yet again. Truth in science CREDIBILITY SCORE = -1

And to cap it off you’ve misrepresented another Flickr user. Truth in science CREDIBILITY SCORE = -1

Total Truth in science CREDIBILITY SCORE = - 6

So………….basically you’re talking bollocks. No surprise there.

Now…………..let’s move on to your “scientific laws”. Because you appear to making up quite a lot more......ABD REMEMBER THAT BURDEN OF PROOF? Why don’t I give you an easy one to start with? Provide a definition of the “Law of cause and effect” from a respected, authoritative scientific source.

REMEMBER..........YOU'RE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIMS. No one else is.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 02:35 PM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
And this from the creationist. Not clever.

Quote:For my followers, and anyone else reading these posts, there is a very good reason why atheists (such as - Mr Aimless, mentioned in my post above) hate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, almost as much as they hate the Law of Cause and Effect.
Apart from its negative implications for abiogenesis and the alleged development of order, it is to do with the very existence of entropy in the universe ...

If the material universe was infinite, we wouldn’t have entropy. Entropy is a characteristic of a temporal state.
The infinite cannot be subject to entropy.
Entropy can apply only to temporal, natural entities.
Therefore, we know that the material universe, as a temporal entity, had to have a beginning and will have an end.
That which existed before the universe, as an original cause of everything material, had to be infinite, because you cannot have an infinite chain of temporal (material) events. The temporal can only exist if it is sustained by the infinite.
As natural entities are temporal, the (infinite) first cause could not be a natural entity.

So the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports and confirms the only logical conclusion we can reach from the Law of Cause and Effect, that a natural, first cause is impossible, according to science.
This is fatal to the atheist ideology of naturalism because it means there is no alternative to an infinite, supernatural, first cause (a Creator God).

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2016, 03:31 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
Well...........the usual evasion, ad hominems, red herrings, reversals of the burden of proof and threats of censorship from my creationist opponent. I'll respond to him in due course. Wonder how long it'll take him to delete my response?

Quote:Silly Deity
So you persist in your ridiculous, childish arguments while ducking out of answering any of my questions.

You wrote:
“Let me remind you yet again that you made some claims and I explained about the burden of proof in my last post in the simplest manner possible. If you make a claim, you have to be able to substantiate that claim by providing evidence to support it.”

It is obvious (from my introduction to my image description) that my argument is not so much a claim as a refutation of unsubstantiated claims repeatedly made by prominent, high profile atheists, such as Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. I don’t care what the dictionary definition of atheism is, what matters is what happens in practice. What matters is what atheists actually say themselves. The vast majority (especially militant atheists) align themselves with science. They masquerade as the defenders and champions of science against the 'superstitious nonsense' of religion. They say such things as - science has replaced God, science has made God redundant, belief in God is just an ignorant way of filling gaps in scientific knowledge, science beats superstition etc. etc.
BTW, you haven't answered my question: NATURAL or SUPERNATURAL - tell us which you one believe in?

A couple of quotes for you: “Once science disproves it (Christianity) thou shalt claim it was a metaphor all along” and “Science Beats Superstition Every Time (the implication being that belief in God is based on superstition)” where did I get those quotes? YOUR PHOTOSTREAM.
YOU make the claim that science will disprove Christianity, and that belief in God is based on superstition – PROVE IT! Where is YOUR evidence?
My argument debunks your claims. I have shown that Christianity is based on reason and logic, and is compatible with natural laws and scientific principles. Your unsubstantiated claims (and those of high profile, campaigning atheists) are refuted by my argument. And I have shown (and you have shown by your refusal to answer my questions) it is actually atheist naturalism that is incompatible with science.

You wrote:
“And to top it all, you then decide that you’re going to misrepresent another Flickr member by quoting him to allege that he disputed the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you care to examine your quotation of his words, you’ll notice funny little squiggles at the end of each sentence. These are question marks. They invariably mean that he is asking you a question, not making a statement. Indeed the question he is asking you about snowflakes etc. is that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics operates in the manner you state, then should their formation not be impossible?”

Rubbish!
Mr Aimless originally brought up the subject of snowflakes and crystals as an example of how order can develop, with reference to the problem of the origin of life, DNA and genetic information, self-developing through of an input of raw energy, from sterile matter. I had already explained snowflakes/crystals are NOT an example of such developing order, that they are simply reverting to the form dictated by their intrinsic atomic/chemical structure when energy is REMOVED to the surrounding environment. And therefore they do not violate the Second Law. He was reluctant to accept that answer because it is a stock-in-trade example that atheists use, to try to claim that abiogenesis does not violate the Second Law, which, of course, it does.
This is part of that debate:
He said:
“You wrote:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered." Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system."
I replied:
I am afraid it is you who doesn’t understand the Second Law. What I said is perfectly correct.
There are only 2 ways the effects of entropy can be temporarily decreased, halted or reversed by an input of energy. Either by a directive means or agent guiding the energy input, OR a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way. Raw (unguided) energy (such as random heat) tends to increase entropy and time makes it worse.
Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings, rather than the opposite, which evolutionists require for abiogenesis.”

Then he failed to properly answer the question I posed about a rubber ball, which put his argument about snowflakes and crystals into perspective. Maybe you would like to answer it, but I doubt it?
I can add it to the list of all the other questions you are reluctant to, or unable to answer.
“If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?”

You wrote:
So let’s see where does it mention scientific laws in the bible? Because I can't find a single use of the words "science" or "scientific" anywhere in it, let alone anything about biogenesis or thermodynamics. Maybe you can provide the chapter and verse about where these are referred to in the bible? Was it in the Old or New Testament?

Where did I mention the Bible? My argument is nothing to do with what scripture does or does not say, it simply demonstrates that belief in God can be reached through reason, logic and natural laws. That is independent of whether someone has even read the Bible. The Christian God is not incompatible with science, whereas atheist naturalism is. That is the theme of my argument, so stop using strawman arguments.

Anyhow. I have had enough of your nonsense. I have better things to do with my time than waste it replying to puerile arguments which are obviously intended by you to fill my image pages with dross which is likely to discourage people from reading them or confuse or distract them from the original argument.
The nonsense you have written so far, adds nothing to debate, so I am going to give you one more chance to answer all the questions I have asked in the previous posts. If you fail to do so, or write any other rubbish, then your post will be deleted.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2016, 10:07 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
(10-10-2016 11:13 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  ...... Atheists can even deny science if they like. ......

The True Destroyers of Evil must not sin, so they can not deny the True Science.
It is sin, to deny the True Science. Smartass
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2016, 02:12 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
My response to the creationist

Quote:Well goodness me. All I asked was for you to provide a definition of the “Law of cause and effect” from a respected, authoritative scientific source. What do I get? An incoherent rant over a thousand words long. And still no definition of the “Law of cause and effect”. One might suspect you’re avoiding something here.

So let’s recap.

You made the following claims:

“Atheists do not accept certain “scientific laws”” – Your claim implied that you’ve contacted every atheist on planet Earth and asked them about these laws. You provided no evidence to substantiate this claim. Further, despite it being pointed out that the definition of atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with science, you continue to peddle your own made-up definition of atheism.

“All Christians accept science” – When asked to provide evidence that this is the case, you couldn’t. Indeed, you’ve changed your story from saying your claim needed no evidence to support it, to saying that your claim is actually not a claim but a refutation of another claim. Further, you’ve admitted that your claim has nothing to do with Christianity when you say, ” My argument is nothing to do with what scripture does or does not say”.

So you were given one chance to substantiate your claims, but failed, and failed miserably.

You were given a chance to provide a definition of one of your "scientific laws"........because you see, it's evident that you're either making these up, or misrepresenting them. But you failed to do even that.

It is plain to see, that your claims are a crude strawman completely fabricating an argument put forward by no-one except yourself.

I have made no claims in this thread whatsoever. If you wish to challenge me on any of the claims I make in my photostream or anywhere else, then do so there. This thread is ABOUT YOUR CLAIMS and any attempt on your part to reverse the burden of proof is simply yet another example of your dishonesty and evasion.

As for your intention to delete my post, I wrote a few days ago about an individual who posts completely nonsensical, made-up claims and then censors the responses that ask for evidence, or censors refutations of those ridiculous claims. I stated that I can't think of a more obvious example of dishonesty than holding a position that you yourself know does not stand up to scrutiny.

You might reflect on that.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2016, 03:04 AM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2016 03:09 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
Christianity is only scientific in its calculated approach to hook people into a new religion.

It does so in a number of ways. It preaches to themes and motifs in their own religion...ie., divine insemination of a virgin, birth story, healing powers, walking on water, crucifixion on a hill top, resurrection. (what religion this is preaching to is, apparently, up for grabs but clearly isn't Judaism of the Old Testament or modern Judaism)

It references a man who is the heir to some royal line of David, Soloman, Abraham, Moses, Adam and god himself.

It is political in its pro-Roman, anti-"Jewish" program. It makes socio-political statements about the society of its time. It dismisses rituals as pointless and meaningless.

It tells an intriguing story of betrayal, trial and crucifixion.

It embeds in it a new version of what god is, ie., the logos or word. It lays out a moral code "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It sets out examples of what this moral code means.

It provides a moral reason for accepting the religion for those who understand it and at the same time it appeals to those who are incapable of reasoning for themselves by providing an incentive to follow it's moral preachings, a life after death, forgiveness etc., all aimed at simpletons who need this sort of stuff to deal with their existential anxiety.

Apart from that aspect, I can't see that it is scientific because most of it is religious hokus pokus.

It is set out in the form of four different versions to give itself verisimilitude, complete with errors normal in independent works.

In that sense, it is, I think, a cunning piece of work which shows a deep understanding of human nature and the psyche and has an enduring message, regardless of the miracles, false timing, change of names etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2016, 04:11 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
Well the creationist censored my most recent post as it rather exposed him yet again as a lying, evasive, deeply dishonest individual.

This is what he has written in response:

Quote:Silly Deity
I gave you one more chance to answer the questions I posed, in order that the debate could progress in a sensible, adult fashion, rather than you simply repeating the same old, childish arguments (which I have already dealt with).
Your arguments are just boring repetition.
I don’t have time to argue with people who keep parroting the same old nonsense, that is not proper debate.

You are obviously terrified of answering any questions because you know that your answers will expose the unscientific and illogical nature of your beliefs.
You think it is much more fun ridiculing the beliefs of others, than trying to justify your own bizarre beliefs.

Anyone who doubts this should have a look at your photostream, which reveals you as a bigoted, fanatical ideologue. So, as I warned you, I have deleted your last post, and will continue to do so until you answer the questions which you are so terrified of answering.

I should add that your hypocrisy is breath-taking. You had the cheek to write this in your (deleted) post:
“All I asked was for you to provide a definition of the “Law of cause and effect” from a respected, authoritative scientific source. What do I get? An incoherent rant over a thousand words long. And still no definition of the “Law of cause and effect”. One might suspect you’re avoiding something here.”

So, you demand that I answer all your questions, while you refuse to answer mine. Yes, indeed - One might suspect it is YOU who is avoiding something here.

If you don’t understand the Law of Cause and Effect and need me to explain it to you, it is no wonder that you hold such illogical and irrational beliefs about the origin of the universe and life. Throughout my photostream I have explained what that law means over, and over again. If it hasn’t sunk in yet, there is no hope for you.
In any case, the Law of Cause and Effect is common sense, I shouldn’t need to explain something even a child can understand.
If (for example), a young boy asks his father why hurricanes happen? By simply asking that, he is applying the Law of Cause and Effect. If his father replies that "hurricanes happen because someone sneezes in another country", the boy would most likely laugh, he would be unlikely to accept that as a sufficient cause. Once again he would be applying the Law of Cause and Effect (without even knowing it).
Even a young child can understand that EVERY natural thing, that happens or exists, needs a cause or causes, and the cause or causes CAN NEVER be inadequate for the effect, or end result. In other words, an effect or entity CAN NEVER be greater than that which causes it, or another way of saying that is: a cause of something cannot be inferior to that which it causes.
The Law of Cause and Effect can be summed up in one short sentence: every natural effect requires an adequate cause. Proper scientists, sensible people, and even children, accept that, without any need to dispute. It is taken for granted as the principle behind the scientific method.
If you have an issue with that definition, then tell us what it is? Or perhaps you can tell us your definition or the Law of Cause and Effect, in a single sentence? Well there is another question for you that you won’t want to answer.

You also wrote in your last post:
“I have made no claims in this thread whatsoever. If you wish to challenge me on any of the claims I make in my photostream or anywhere else, then do so there. This thread is ABOUT YOUR CLAIMS and any attempt on your part to reverse the burden of proof is simply yet another example of your dishonesty and evasion.”

Your photostream is full of unsubstantiated claims, it is sheer hypocrisy for you to talk about burdens of proof to anyone, when you provide absolutely none in your own photostream.
Anyone accessing my photostream can see that I ALWAYS give detailed descriptions citing logic, natural laws and scientific principles for ALL the claims I make on my image pages.
You give absolutely nothing to accompany most of your images, which consist mainly of ridicule, insults, sound bites and slogans. Why do you demand from others, what you are unable to provide yourself?
You may not like my arguments and my defense of the views accompanying my images, but that is your problem. At least, I always back up my images with an explanation of my claims and opinions.
As I said before, people only have to look at your photostream, to see than you are a close-minded fanatic, so it is obvious from this fact, that no logical argument, natural laws or evidence would change your bigoted views about religion.
And this is my thread, not yours. I have already told you the theme is about claims repeatedly made by prominent atheists, such as Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins and many others, along with the popular, secularist media; that science is incompatible with Christianity and that atheism is the rational, scientific view of the universe and origins.

The offer is still open for you to answer all the questions I have asked in the previous posts. But, as before, if you fail to do so by writing any other rubbish, or by giving weblinks or copy and pastes, your post will be deleted.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2016, 03:33 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
Oh, and now he's trying to shift the burden of proof further. He's now demanding to know the answers to questions - apparently I'm "terrified" to answer them.

Funny that..........considering he consistently fails to answer any questions asked of him.

Quote:Here is a recap of the questions I asked previously, which you are obviously terrified to answer, in case you commit yourself to believing in the bizarre, atheist ideology of naturalism, which you have now realised is so easy to debunk.

1. Please tell us (for example) whether, as an atheist, you fully accept the Law of Biogenesis, as it relates to the origin of life on Earth? No ifs or buts, long-winded, beating about the bush, or copy and pastes or links to websites.
It is a simple question, so there is no reason why you cannot just give a YES or NO answer?
As a Christian, my answer to that question is an emphatic YES ... what is yours?
Atheists HAVE GOT TO believe that everything came from nothing by natural processes, and that life originated by natural, processes. They have no other option. If they don't believe in a natural oriogin, then they would have to believe in a supernatural origin – a Creator (a supernatural deity), which means they would not be atheists.
It has got to be one or the other ... NATURAL or SUPERNATURAL.
Natural = atheist belief
Supernatural = theist belief
Please tell us which you one believe in?

2. A couple of quotes for you: “Once science disproves it (Christianity) thou shalt claim it was a metaphor all along” and “Science Beats Superstition Every Time (the implication being that belief in God is based on superstition)” where did I get those quotes? YOUR PHOTOSTREAM.
YOU make the claim that science will disprove Christianity, and that belief in God is based on superstition – PROVE IT! Where is YOUR evidence?

You have repeatedly denied in this thread that you (and other atheists) claim to be champions of science against Christianity. You claim that atheism is simply the rejection of all deities and nothing at all to do with science.
Your own photostream images show that this is a deliberate lie.
Your photostream images prove that you (as a typical, militant atheist) DO try to use science as a weapon and argument against Christianity and a supernatural, first cause.
They prove that you claim to be on the side of science against what you call religious “superstition”, which is exactly the ‘atheist claim’ that my argument on this image page addresses and effectively refutes.

So now we have established, from your own photostream, that you DO claim that YOUR atheist viewpoint is more scientific than Christianity, and your denial of that is just a barefaced lie, you have no excuse NOT to answer any questions based on that claim.

3. Mr Aimless failed to properly answer the question I posed about a rubber ball, which put his argument about snowflakes and crystals into perspective. Maybe you would like to answer it, but I doubt it?
I can add it to the list of all the other questions you are reluctant to, or unable to answer.
If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?

4. Even a young child can understand that EVERY natural thing, that happens or exists, needs a cause or causes, and the cause or causes CAN NEVER be inadequate for the effect, or the end result. In other words, an effect or entity CAN NEVER be greater than that which causes it, or another way of saying that is: a cause of something cannot be inferior to that which it causes.
The Law of Cause and Effect can be summed up in one short sentence: every natural effect requires an adequate cause. Proper scientists, sensible people, and even children, accept that, without any need to dispute. It is taken for granted as the principle behind the scientific method.
If you have an issue with that definition, then tell us what it is? Or perhaps you can tell us your definition or the Law of Cause and Effect, in a single sentence?
Well there is another question for you that you won’t want to answer.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2016, 06:26 AM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2016 06:31 AM by SYZ.)
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
The funny thing is that by criticising atheism and atheists, your Christian opponent is effectively (and unwittingly LOL) confirming precisely what religion is...

Quote:Silly Deity I gave you one more chance to answer the questions I posed, in order that the debate could progress in a sensible, adult fashion, rather than you simply repeating the same old, childish arguments (which I have already dealt with). Your arguments are just boring repetition. I don’t have time to argue with people who keep parroting the same old nonsense, that is not proper debate...

I also note his overuse of pejorative terms—typical of someone with no real defense; childish, repetition, boring, nonsense, bizarre, parroting, sensible, same old etc. He's obviously not the Christian world's greatest apologist.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: