The Really Stupid Part of Creationism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2016, 06:37 AM
The Really Stupid Part of Creationism
What gets me ---

Is the creationist type believes it impossible for the universe to have always existed, and must have been created.

But

The idea of some invisible, immortal cockknocker who has the magical powers to come along and create a universe.... THAT they have no problem with.....


Blink

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like onlinebiker's post
23-01-2016, 06:47 AM
RE: The Really Stupid Part of Creationism
(23-01-2016 06:37 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  What gets me ---

Is the creationist type believes it impossible for the universe to have always existed, and must have been created.

But

The idea of some invisible, immortal cockknocker who has the magical powers to come along and create a universe.... THAT they have no problem with.....


Blink

Because only the unmoved mover and be the unmoved mover and the unmoved mover must be a man with a beard.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
23-01-2016, 07:00 AM
RE: The Really Stupid Part of Creationism
(23-01-2016 06:37 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  What gets me ---

Is the creationist type believes it impossible for the universe to have always existed, and must have been created.

But

The idea of some invisible, immortal cockknocker who has the magical powers to come along and create a universe.... THAT they have no problem with.....


Blink

"part" no, the entire idea sucks.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
23-01-2016, 07:16 AM
RE: The Really Stupid Part of Creationism
The really stupid part of creationism is the believers. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Chas's post
23-01-2016, 07:25 AM
RE: The Really Stupid Part of Creationism
Is this where that 'uncreated creator' crap starts again?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
23-01-2016, 07:35 AM
RE: The Really Stupid Part of Creationism
(23-01-2016 07:25 AM)Anjele Wrote:  Is this where that 'uncreated creator' crap starts again?

Yup. It's the very picture of special pleading, its poster child.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
23-01-2016, 08:06 AM
RE: The Really Stupid Part of Creationism
(23-01-2016 06:37 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  What gets me ---

Is the creationist type believes it impossible for the universe to have always existed, and must have been created.

But

The idea of some invisible, immortal cockknocker who has the magical powers to come along and create a universe.... THAT they have no problem with.....


Blink

I find it funny as well.

Believer: How do you account for existence without God, huh, huh, huh? Take that atheist!

Me: Let me get this straight. Does your God exist.

Believer: He does, absolutely, and you can"t prove that he doesn't.

Me: Let's not try to prove any negatives here. In a minute this won't be necessary anyway. So you claim that your God exists. Then you are pointing to something that exists in order to explain existence? Do you see the problem here?

Believer: (evading these questions) How do you account for life, huh, huh, huh? Take that atheist!

Me: Let me get this straight. Is your God alive?

Believer: He sure is. We don't call him the living God without a reason.

Me: So you are pointing at something that is alive, in order to account for life? How have you made any progress towards accounting for life?

Believer: Blank out.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like true scotsman's post
25-01-2016, 08:34 PM
RE: The Really Stupid Part of Creationism
(23-01-2016 08:06 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 06:37 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  What gets me ---

Is the creationist type believes it impossible for the universe to have always existed, and must have been created.

But

The idea of some invisible, immortal cockknocker who has the magical powers to come along and create a universe.... THAT they have no problem with.....


Blink

I find it funny as well.

Believer: How do you account for existence without God, huh, huh, huh? Take that atheist!

Me: Let me get this straight. Does your God exist.

Believer: He does, absolutely, and you can"t prove that he doesn't.

Me: Let's not try to prove any negatives here. In a minute this won't be necessary anyway. So you claim that your God exists. Then you are pointing to something that exists in order to explain existence? Do you see the problem here?

Believer: (evading these questions) How do you account for life, huh, huh, huh? Take that atheist!

Me: Let me get this straight. Is your God alive?

Believer: He sure is. We don't call him the living God without a reason.

Me: So you are pointing at something that is alive, in order to account for life? How have you made any progress towards accounting for life?

Believer: Blank out.

Blank out, or come back with all sorts of hapless BS they are convinced are "proof", ad infinitum, or just post complete shit to get some kind of jollies from it. They know who they are, here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 08:44 PM
RE: The Really Stupid Part of Creationism
The best argument I saw was against the idea of infinite universes, but as per usual the religious screwed up the argument.

The modal Ontological argument.

It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 08:50 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2016 01:22 PM by Chas.)
RE: The Really Stupid Part of Creationism
(25-01-2016 08:44 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  The best argument I saw was against the idea of infinite universes, but as per usual the religious screwed up the argument.

The modal Ontological argument.

It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Best in what way? It is a logically flawed argument.

You can't get from "there exists an X such that Y" to "for all Y, X".
In other words: " If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world." is bullshit.

These buffoons do not understand modal logic.

"The basic unary (1-place) modal operators are usually written □ for Necessarily and ◇ for Possibly. In a classical modal logic, each can be expressed by the other with negation:

◇P ⇔ ¬□ ¬P
□P ⇔ ¬◇ ¬P."

You cannot derive their claim [ ◇P → □P ] from these.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: