Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2014, 10:31 AM
RE: genesis
(17-02-2014 10:14 AM)Logisch Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 10:05 AM)goldenmustache Wrote:  have you taken a look at your evidence? your an atheist and yet have no proof or really any reasonable possibility exept theories of what kicked off the big bang. you asked if where is your gods start. I told you and The bible is proof of it really if you want to go down that road.

How is the bible proof of it any more than the qu'ran is proof of their god?

By this logic, we could also conclude that Laws of Manu is proof of Shiva, Vishni or Devi. Since the epic of gilgamesh is a known, proven ancient artifact, how could you dismiss that it is proof of an ancient flood caused by the gods when it's clear that Ishtar exists. I mean she's mentioned in it right? Clearly Ishtar exists too.

Atheism requires no evidence because it is a stance on the subject. It is literally, "I lack belief in a god or gods." there is no need to meet a burden of proof there as it is the default stance of many things. If someone makes a claim and cannot bring evidence to meet their burden of proof, the default stance of the person who is skeptical is not that they are in a sub sect of non-belief. They simply don't believe it.

If someone says you are guilty of murder, is it not on them to prove that you did it since they are the one posting the claim? For those who are on the end of the jury, the default is to not make an accusation in lieu of evidence. No evidence, can't hold them guilty.

In this same way, god is either guilty or not guilty of existing. You are posting the claim, and you say, "my evidence is a book." and we are saying, "then why are the other books false and YOURS true?" and all you are going back to is, "Book." I'm saying, "Your book doesn't meet this criteria any more than any other ancient book." and that your evidence is lacking. Aside from citing the same website over and over, you are failing to explain why and how your holy book is a convincing manner to prove that:

- god exists
- the bible is true
- god exists outside time and space
- how you know this

If you cannot meet the burden of proof to these claims, then my default stance is, "god is not guilty of existing. the bible is not guilty of being correct. god is not guilty of being outside of time and space. goldenmustache is not guilty of knowing this is true."

You're doing a tapdance avoiding the questions and then telling us, who are the ones skeptical of your claim that we need proof of our skepticism. This is not how skepticism and non-belief works. Someone who does not believe something is not the person who is required to post the evidence, the person staking the claim does.

So tell me, why is your book the correct book. Why are the Laws of Manu incorrect? Since you're using ancient text as your proof, you're going to need to explain to me why every other ancient text of other religions are false and only yours is correct.

Who cares about religions. they are pointless to you. you cant even aknowledge that a god created the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 10:32 AM
RE: genesis
(17-02-2014 10:20 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Genesis is a creation myth like hundreds of others throughout hundreds of other cultures. Nothing more.
You shouldn't believe it because there is no evidence to back up the story and many parts of the story do not match real observations of the universe and the beginnings of it's expansion. Nothing about it is factual. It is fictional.

Animals weren't created. Humans weren't created. Everything wasn't created.
We know this because we observed reality and discovered the evolution of all biology and have shown how it's all connected.
We know how stars form and how solar systems form. We know that for heavier elements to exist, they need to form in stars and those stars then need to explode, casting out those heavy elements, like carbon, so all of that matter can form a new star system in which life has the potential to arise.

The story of genesis reads like the ramblings of a homeless person.

The fact that you would believe it, indicates a high level of brain washing.

You shouldn't even look at that stuff its useless to you. You don't even believe in a god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 10:33 AM
RE: genesis
OK peace, I give up. Have a nice life golden.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: genesis
(17-02-2014 10:06 AM)goldenmustache Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 09:59 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  And supporting that...
Love is a beneficial emotion that allows us to easily:
Mate and preserve are genes
Get attached to a person. (Defend child so your DNA stays existent.)
Other emotions are chemical processes that are beneficial in many ways.

yeah and evolution doesn't prove that.

Yes it does. Seriously, do you even know what evolution is?
Sure it's random changes, but there is still survival of the fittest. A animal that has few babies and nurtures them is going to have more babies survive than one that has few babies and doesn't.
So there are basically now two groups of animals:
Large amounts of babies, not nurtured
Few amounts of babies, nurtured
Animals have these traits because they evolved with them for beneficial reasons... The ones with the worse traits died off, and the fitter, survived.
Evolution does prove that because without "love" and "empathy" our species wouldn't survive. That's why we have that. If it were a perfect world, where there was a garden of eden, we wouldn't have those feelings, because we wouldn't need them.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
17-02-2014, 10:35 AM
RE: genesis
(17-02-2014 10:31 AM)goldenmustache Wrote:  Who cares about religions. they are pointless to you. you cant even aknowledge that a god created the universe.

Incorrect, you are dodging the question.

Which god created the universe?
How do you know that god created the universe?

I'm a skeptic, my stance is to be skeptical. This does not mean that I am not open to new ideas, information or evidence. But I require evidence to change my mind otherwise. Instead of addressing this, you're dodging questions or resorting to assertions and assumptions about my character. This is not a failure on my part, this is a failure of yours to explain these as requested.

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 10:36 AM
RE: genesis
(17-02-2014 10:29 AM)goldenmustache Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 10:08 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Do everyone a favor and go kill yourself. It's win win you get to go meet Jesus and the world is a better place without your stupidity dragging the planet down. You are the reason America is falling behind the rest of the world.

Evolution does not even explain the eye. An organism doesn't just say hey I need an eye and grow it over night. the eye would take millions of years to form. Genetic mutations form and very very rarely does it do a beneficial one. It is not passed down to its children if its not beneficial until its a 100% an eye so it will not be passed down generations until it benefits the organism which it does not until it is a full eye. forget that you have to explain how a universe came into being by itself with precise physics and laws guiding it into place. It was not random chance.

I see you did see this the first time so

Umm yes it does, you just don't know anything about what evolution really is. Go look this shit up before you proceed to look like an even bigger idiot.

Here is the Wiki that would have taken you upwards of 3 seconds to google.

[Image: humane7.jpg]

Here is David Attenborough explaining why you are a fucktard

Here is the last link in a more mobile friendly set up

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 10:38 AM
RE: genesis
[Image: bGXwQqXl.png]

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logisch's post
17-02-2014, 11:07 AM
RE: genesis
Wow, a living breathing wack-a-doodle! Golden is showing all the classic traits such as circular reasoning, avoidance, unsupported assertions, and a truckload of ignorance! They'd be great in a circus inbetween the bearded lady and the snake man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
17-02-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: genesis
(17-02-2014 09:48 AM)goldenmustache Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 09:36 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  So is "progressive creationism" the latest hipster in group to be in, where you still believe in God, but need a unique way of fitting him into the history of the universe/world as we know it? Your views are still entirely based on nothing but imagination, and contradict scientific theory (although you think it better meshes science and creationism). You have no proof that God created anything over any period of time. You cannot deny macroevolution while giving microevolution some validity. It is an even more wishy washy mindset then just taking the creation story in Genesis to be true as stated. Why do you folks resist listening to the vast scientific community, and cling to stories and made up ideas just to keep this God concept from fading into the barbaric past? Why? No need to as we now know in 2014 how all forms of life came about. Why man, why?

Where are you getting these silly ideas from. Now your just assuming what I believe. I do believe In progressive creationism and microevolution.

I got it right - no assumptions as I acknowleged you aligned with progessive creationism, microevolution, and denied macroevolution. I got these silly ideas from you stating what your views are called, and then me responding on the aspects of those views. Please read and comprehend all posts, and the stories of creation are indeed still silly ideas.Big Grin

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
17-02-2014, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 11:58 AM by cjlr.)
RE: genesis
Maybe we should have a disclaimer when people try to register:
"My only purpose here is to regurgitate hackneyed old dogshit ignorance because I don't understand the universe and I resent those who do because it makes my book of fairy tales harder to continue believing in. Yes/No."

Maybe I can save us a little time and summarize the rest of this precious little exchange using my amazing predictive powers of science:

Genesis of Ignorance
A Dialogue

Dramatis Personae:
goldenmustache: a sad, strange little man. Hereafter referred to as 'g'.
a sane person: take your pick. Hereafter referred to as 's'.

[enter sane person and goldenmustache]
g: "Everything that exists needs a cause. The universe exists. Therefore the universe needs a cause."
s: "You don't know that, you've merely asserted it."
g: "If the universe has a cause then that cause is a creator."
s: "Again, you've just asserted that. That doesn't make it true."
g: "It is true because it follows from my premises."
s: "That only makes it self-consistent. That is not the same as true. Your premises are just made up in order to generate that conclusion."
g: "Science doesn't know where the universe came from. I do. Therefore I am right."
s: "But what about the creator? You said everything that exists needs to have a cause."
g: "The creator does not need to have a cause."
s: "But isn't the creator necessarily a part of 'everything'?"
g: "Everything needs to have a cause. The creator does not need to have a cause. That is how I have defined it. Therefore it is true."
s: "That is all untestable anyway. Your premises are fiat but they don't actually change anything. It is not possible to conclude anything about the creator from the premises you have given."
g: "Yes it is. The Bible is true."
s: "That is a non sequitur."
g: "I have proven there is a creator. The Bible says there is a creator. Therefore the Bible is true."
s: "But other religions and holy books say they know about the creator(s). What makes your beliefs special?"
g: "I am right."
s: "Other religions think they are right, too. What makes your beliefs special?"
g: "I know I am right and they are wrong. Therefore I am right and they are wrong."
s: "Fine. Because this is going nowhere, I will grant for the sake of argument that your personal subjective experience is for some reason more creditable than the vast majority of other human beings' personal subjective experiences. Why do you believe the Bible? It says many things which aren't true."
g: "No it doesn't."
s: "It says the Earth is thousands of years old. Its authors did not understand science."
g: "You are reading it wrong."
s: "But its accounts of history (cosmological, geological, biological, and social) are completely inaccurate."
g: "No. Science is a conspiracy."
s: "That is stupid. The Bible says the sun goes around the Earth. You can see with your own eyes that the Earth goes around the sun."
g: ...
s: "The Bible says the Earth is thousands of years old. The Earth is billions of years old."
g: "Radiometric dating is a conspiracy."
s: "Do you know what radiometry is?"
g: "No. But it is a conspiracy."
s: "It is only one of a great many fields of consistent and overlapping evidence. Do you know how tree rings work?"
g: "No. I know literally nothing about any sort of science or naturalism."
s: "Okay. Trees grow differently in different seasons. We can count the rings and estimate how old a tree is."
g: "So?"
s: "The pattern of the rings depends on climate. Trees that were different ages during the same event will have the same climate pattern at different points. Therefore we can tell how old one is relative to the other."
g: "So?"
s: "There are lots of trees. There are trees now that are thousands of years old. We can prove some trees are older than others. We can prove that some trees we have samples from must be many thousands of years old - older than the Bible says the Earth is."
g: ...
s: "The same is true, incidentally, of ice cores, of sedimentary analysis, of tectonics, of fossils, and yes, of radiological dating..."
g: "You said fossils. That means evolution. Evolution is a conspiracy."
s: "Evolution is a fact. Will you consider three points? Different individuals exhibit different traits. Different traits make individuals more or less likely to reproduce. Different traits are hereditary. Do you agree with all three?"
g: "Yes."
s: "Then you agree with evolution. If the expression of traits in a population changes over time, that is evolution."
g: "No. Evolution is the big bang."
s: "No, it isn't."
g: "Big changes cannot happen. Only small changes can happen."
s: "A big change is merely the accumulation of small changes."
g: "No. There is a magic line at which changes stop."
s: "Okay. If that were true couldn't we induce divergent changes and determine where that line exists?"
g: "No. Science is a conspiracy."
s: "What makes you say that?"
g: "Science doesn't agree with the Bible. The Bible is true. Therefore science is a conspiracy."
s: "Did you know that huge numbers of scientists are religious people."
g: "They are the wrong sort of religious people. They don't count."
s: "Fine. Have you ever looked at the night sky? There are many stars there. We can tell what they are made of, how far away they are, and how old they are by studying them carefully. They are billions and billions of years old."
g: "No. The Bible says they are not that old."
s: "We can test the postulates of relativity and confirm them. This is how the GPS in your car works, among other things. Therefore the speed of light should be constant. Therefore the stars are probably as old as they appear."
g: "Maybe things happened differently in the past."
s: "That is an interesting idea! There are two possibilities there. Either everything changed commensurately and it therefore makes no difference because such a change would be unobservable - so that will not solve your problem - or else such a change would leave evidence of having happened. There is no such evidence. Allow me to give you a somewhat forced analogy: Cerenkov radiation is emitted by photons which enter a medium at such a velocity that their initial energy is greater than the velocity permitted by the optical density of the new medium. The excess energy is lost as radiation. If the speed of light 'changed' it would leave evidence in a similar fashion."
g: "I do not understand those words, because I do not understand science. Therefore you are part of the conspiracy."
s: "If you simply choose not to listen to anyone who disagrees with you or attempts to correct you, you will never change your mind."
g: "Yes. That is precisely the point."
s: "But there are some things even you cannot deny. You can see the sun. You can see the stars. You can see evolution. They all indicate a cosmic history of billions of years."
g: ...
g: "Maybe the creator only made it look that way."
s: "That is an old idea. But let us grant it: in that case, all of our science is going to be entirely consistent and incredibly useful anyway, exactly as it would be if it were 'really' true. So there is no difference from a scientific perspective."
g: "But if that were true, I can reconcile my denial of reality with my continued acceptance of scientific outputs. That way I can call science a vast conspiracy but also continue eating food and heating my house and broadcasting my ignorance on the internet, because I like doing those things, and they are products of science."
s: "But you would be asserting - for no reason - something which had no evidence - and by definition could never have any evidence - in order to preserve a convoluted and deranged version of Biblical history which is no longer literal in any case!"
g: ...
s: "Well, whatever. Based on all of the above - the Bible stories are not true about biology, the Bible stories are not true about cosmology, the Bible stories are not true about history - why do you believe any of it?"
g: "The Bible says the Bible is true."
s: "I'm telling you that I'm telling the truth. But you don't believe me."
g: "I believe the Bible."
s: "Despite everything that's wrong with it?"
g: "Yes. I would rather deny reality."
s: "Why?"
g: "I am afraid of the universe. It is big and scary."
s: "Why would it be scary? It simply exists."
g: "It does not tell me I am special. It does not tell me what to do."
s: "Why should that matter?"
g: "Without a demonstrably incorrect book telling us we are special everyone on Earth would be literally the same as Hitler and we would be raping babies in the streets."
s: "Um. There are billions of people who don't act that way even though they don't believe the same book that you do. There are hundreds of millions of people who don't act that way even though they don't believe the same book the same way that you do."
g: "That doesn't matter. Everything that is good comes from the creator anyway."
s: "If that's so, then why does it matter if science is true or whether some other stories are completely false? Why does it matter what we believe?"
g: "Only believers will be saved by the creator."
s: "Saved from what?"
g: "Saved from the creator."
s: "Why would a creator need to save us from itself?"
g: "The creator created us. The creator made us flawed so that he would be able to save us from himself. If he didn't intercede with himself he would have to condemn us to a fate he created for us for being the way he created us."
s: ...
g: "Instead he sacrificed himself to himself, because that was the only way to change the rules he made for himself to apply to the creations he made. Wasn't that nice of him?"
s: And I'm supposed to accept this the basis of a book which we've already established is incorrect in almost innumerable ways?"
g: "Yes."
s: "Don't you have anything better? I find it hard to believe things I know are false."
g: "You can ask the creator."
s: "How?"
g: "You can ask the creator."
s: "Yeah. But how?"
g: "You can ask the creator. You have to ask sincerely."
[time passes]
s: "I asked the creator. Nothing happened."
g: "You must have asked wrong."
s: "You didn't tell me how to ask. I tried doing what you said and being sincere and nothing happened."
g: "You must have asked wrong."
s: "How do I know if I ask right?"
g: "If it works, then you asked right. If it doesn't work, then you asked wrong."
s: "That's literally unfalsifiable."
g: "Yes. Precisely."
s: ...
s: "Wait. I'm lost. What does any of this have to do with the origin of the universe?"
g: "I can prove deism by fiat. Therefore my specific interpretation of Christianity is exclusively correct and everything else is wrong. QED. Nothing will ever change my mind because I employ every cognitive bias in the book to reinforce this belief, up to and including denying manifestly obvious scientific findings. I do this because I am terrified of having to figure out life on my own without an abusive cosmic parent to remove all independence and responsibility from my life."
s: "This has been extraordinarily pointless."
[exit sane person]
[re-enter sane person]
s: "And another thing - did you know computers were invented by a gay atheist?"
[goldenmustache logs off]
[exit sane person]


I think that pretty much covers it. Did I miss anything?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: