Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2016, 07:45 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

Yes it can.

Quote:How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

Wrong. You don't know, but science knows that light detecting cells operate in many other light detection systems, including the eye.

Quote:As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

Read a book, and stop asking us to do your homework.

Quote:What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

Scientists don't "cling" to anything. Science is a very competitive business. Anyone awho acyually could come up with a better explanation would get a Nobel and 1.5 million dollars. You got one ? (I didn't think so).

Quote:The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

LOL. You can't be serious.

Quote:It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".


Unfortunately for you, you have NO evidence for a god.

Most of all, you're barking up an ignorant tree. There is no evidence for any god. If there were, faith would be unnecessary. Are you the FIRST believer in human history who doesn't need faith ?

Facepalm


Are you like 12 ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-12-2016, 07:46 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

As far as I am aware, there exists NO validity as to the probability og any supernatural being."

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

"You've spoken to MOST atheists???"

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

"What, that you haven't spoken to most atheists? Yeah, we know."

The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

"The theory of evolution can speak??? Actually the words theory/science are one in the same in this nature.

Evolution is a modern science used in industry every day. Ever notice how the phones keep getting more advanced???"


How does natural selection explain the eye, for example?

"The above question is now over a century out of date. You are showing your ignorance. You pretend to ask questions while telling us what is or is not possible.

We have evolutionary biologists here at this site.


How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

"The above is so idiotic and uninformed, I won't bother. Others will.

My advice is you read an actually biology textbook."


As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

"How about you do some study on the history of knowledge regarding DNA. Then get back to us."

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

"Only this can suffice":

[Image: 10574265464_449a1b2b96_b.jpg]

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

"Okay, so you want to hire a teacher? You are too lazy to read a book or information on the net? How much does this job pay?"


The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

"You see what I mean? You are NOT asking. Your question is insincere, dishonest and insulting.

Please fuck off."


It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

"Yeah but in your first post you proved what a dumb cunt you are.

Cunt!

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Banjo's post
28-12-2016, 07:55 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
Yadayadayada, welcome to TTA.

Now, if it's not too much trouble, could you kindly return to Atheist Forums where you had earlier posted a thread identical to this one, and actually hold a conversation with the people there?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Astreja's post
28-12-2016, 08:01 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".


The problem is that God, as described by Christians and Moslems and others, is said to have attributes that logically contradict each other and create logically problems. Free will vs God's perfect foreknowledge of all future events. God as all powerful and all good, yet we see a lot of evil in the world. Claims God predestines to elect and the damned arbitrarily, God the potter of Romans 8. and on and on. Is God outside of time, or subject to time? If the latter, where does time come from? If the former, all things are God's creation, there is no free will, so why moral evil? And more. God as a hypothesis makes no sense in the end.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
28-12-2016, 08:06 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

It's ironic your name is yadayadayada.

[Image: Beating-a-dead-horse_zps4d06e22a.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like pablo's post
28-12-2016, 08:20 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  ...
Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.
...

Then those very same "most atheists" would be wrong... the concept of god demonstrably exists.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  ...
It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

^^ That's the only bit you got right.

But there's no contradiction there, so your "rather" is rather meaningless.

Welcome to TTA.

I hope you have fun. I know we will.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 08:22 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

You know, it always amuses me when people bring up the eye as inexplicable under natural selection as though nobody has ever thought about that before, given that Darwin himself addressed the eye specifically in On the Origin of Species, and if his base examination were not enough he predicted almost precisely what was found in later generations; progressive stages throughout known (along with discovered preserved) species which held cumulative advantages.

It's almost as if creationists haven't bothered to actually examine the topic at even the most base level.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like Free Thought's post
28-12-2016, 08:41 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

Depends on how you define god. And depends on what you mean by unlikely.

Quote:But, this is not what the facts show at all.

Please, do tell.

Quote:The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

Irrelevant.

Quote:How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

I'm sorry, but I'm cutting this off here. The next section is not just irrelevant to the God question, but shows your general ignorance of science and evolution. You could READ the origin of species, take a couple courses in biology and geology, and quite frankly in theology, to clear up these misconceptions.

The science of evolution and its study are not relevant to the existence of God.

Quote:The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

The Bible says a lot of things. Some are correct. Some are not. Some are histories. Some are mythologies. Some are parables. Some are just observations made by people at the time. This is evidence of nothing but human authors, ink, paper, and printing presses.

Quote:It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

Define your god. Then provide the evidence.

Look, even if everything we knew about science was wrong it wouldn't mean god. A positive cannot be proven by pointing out negatives in another place. You need to provide a positive reason to believe in this god thingy.

We know we exist, because we are here thinking about it. We know the universe exists because we are here contemplating it. We posit the existence of a god. The existence of God is a separate matter from the existence of the other two, unless you can prove otherwise. So provide your positive evidence. I'm waiting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like natachan's post
28-12-2016, 08:42 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-12-2016, 08:43 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2016 08:49 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
I'm going to answer the OP without reading the rest of the thread, and then catch up to the replies in a later post.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

"The" atheist viewpoint on the probability of God's existence doesn't exist. There are several different such viewpoints. But I'll give you the best reply that I can.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

Many, certainly. I couldn't say whether it's a majority.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  But, this is not what the facts show at all.

Uhoh. This is sounding less and less like a question.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

Wow, someone who sounds like an apologist actually making a technically-accurate statement about the theory of evolution. This IS a change. Still a hint of deception and half-truth to this, but a change nonetheless.

You are correct that the Theory of Evolution addresses neither of these. The Theory of Evolution focuses on where the various species comes from, what shapes them, why and how they're similar and related, and so forth. It no more addresses the origination and perpetuation of life itself than geography addresses how the Earth was formed. For that, you'd want to talk to someone studying abiogenesis or biology.

Also, it seems you are running FAR afield from atheism. There are some atheists out there who don't accept the Theory of Evolution. For that matter, a majority of theists DO accept it. You... seem to be having trouble staying on-topic.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

Oy, this again.

At least you didn't attribute this to Darwin, which has to be in the top-ten most popular anti-evolution deceptions out there.

But this statement is still flat false on many levels.

No, the human eye is NOT useless unless all the components are in the same place at the same time. As just one example, remove all the cones from the human eye and you'd have someone who was completely colorblind, but could still see just fine in black-and-white, which is far from the uselessness that you describe.

But why should I be explaining this? Again, this isn't about atheism. This is about biology, evolutionary science, and the like. I'm an atheist, but I'm not a biologist, or an evolutionary scientist, or anything of the sort. So, let me find an expert to explain this.

... oh, here we go, found a quote online. I didn't have to look that far to find it either. It was practically on the top of the pile. (I should warn you, this involves a bit of reading. Reading is the cost of getting answers, sometimes. Such a hard world.)

Quote:To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens-shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.

He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.

It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

-- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859 edition, pages 186-190

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

... again, you should be asking this of biologists and evolutionary scientists, not atheists. (Well, okay, there are some atheists that are also evolutionary scientists. Look for RocketSurgeon's reply, if he deigns to provide it.)

Let's see what the internet will reveal to us!

... huh. Okay, so it took me all of 30 seconds on Google to learn that mammals DIDN'T evolve from reptiles. Rather, mammals and reptiles are cousins with a shared ancestor.

So I guess there wouldn't be any evidence for mammals evolving from reptiles at all.

.... why am I doing your research for you, again? It's not like this is difficult.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

... that's not what "evolution" means outside of comic books and bad sci-fi.

If you want to see a living entity to be observed to be changing into something different, I'd suggest you look at a caterpillar go through metamorphosis.

If you want to see something breach the barriers of its DNA, I suggest you talk to a scientifically-literate copy editor about how that sentence makes no damn sense.

And if you want answers to more questions like this, ask a biologist, not an atheist, and expect to have them laugh in your face. This is like asking how, if the moon is made of green cheese, then why does it have holes like Swiss cheese.

But don't expect anyone who understands what the theory of evolution says to be remotely persuaded by you attacking some bizarre parody of it that isn't what it actually says. Those are the antics of a clown, and worthy only of guffaws and jeers.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

Again, reptiles didn't become mammals. But as for ongoing transitions...

... well, pretty much every species is evolving at present.

But for something both dramatic and modern, have a look at the divergence of urban bedbugs from their country cousins. Or if you INSIST on a reptile, how the yellow-bellied three-toed skink is developing live birth.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

This is also what the Theory of Evolution says. But UNLIKE the Bible, the Theory of Evolution does not say that the stars are fixed into a physical firmament, that night and day could exist before the sun, that the moon is a light, or that whales are fish and bats are fowl.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

....... okay, TIME OUT.

First of all, you utterly failed to put any dent in the Theory of Evolution, mostly because you were too busy attacking a bizarre facsimile of it and failed to actually aim a single credible attack at the real Theory itself.

BUT EVEN IGNORING THAT.

Let me suppose, for the moment, for the sake of argument, that in some insane alternate universe you had managed to completely debunk the Theory of Evolution.

That obviously means that the universe originated from the Cosmic Egg.

... or was spoken into being by the Egyptian God Ptah.

Or was created by the Flying Spaghetti monster.

Or just snapped into existence last Tuesday.

In all your miserably inept bungling to try to undo evolution, you said NOT ONE WORD in support of your God. You did nothing to advance your view above ANY OTHER EXPLANATION OUT THERE.

You did nothing to address the actual paradoxes of the Biblical god: an omnipotent being that can't create a rock he can't lift; an omniscient being that cannot know that this sentence is true; an omnibenevolent being that created a world with smallpox and childhood cancer.

You did nothing to suggest why the Bible should be taken as anything more than the myths and fables appropriated and produced by bronze- and iron-age humans, who knew damn well for themselves that like produced like.

You did not address the documented scribal errors, the lack of clearly-identified authors, and the clear disparities with reality. (As just one example, no one's been able to heal amputees with prayer, despite Jesus's promises to that effect.)

So, in summary, you came to try to persuade atheists of the existence of the Christian god by arguing AGAINST something that a majority of Christians believe in and the absence of which wouldn't actually imply a god, you then failed to do so in any effective way because you didn't even comprehend what you were arguing against, you didn't do the slightest bit of fact-checking prior to launching on this fool's errand, and then having imagined to have completed this task you then strutted around pretending that any of this somehow lent the slightest bit of credence to an absurd concept that is utterly independent of it.

And the worst part of it is, you AREN'T the first person to stand up and represent Christianity with this buffoonery. Nor the second. Nor the third. If the number's under a thousand I'd be greatly surprised.

And you ARE representing Christianity. You, right now, in this thread, are the face of Christianity. We are looking at you and saying to ourselves, "HOLY CRAP WHATEVER THAT GUY'S ON I DON'T WANT ANY OF IT!" This is the face of Christianity you've decided to present to us.

It's a Wednesday, isn't it?

Fucking Wednesdays.

Here's the proof that God doesn't exist. If there was a God, we wouldn't have to put up with this bullshit every damn Wednesday.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: