I'm an aethist....

Why would you leave such an important job as researching the Easter bunny to freaks and nuts? You should at least make the attempt yourself to be sure that they don't try to deceive you.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Wilso wrote:
real life wrote:
young_thinker wrote:
......... I think it is the strongest base that religiousman has to attack an aethiest.

Well, even assuming the Big Bang occurred ( a ' scientific miracle' occurring, as you termed it), the obvious question is:

where did the matter and energy that interacted in the Big Bang come from?

And you say it must be god, for lack of any other explanation. The typical theist cop-out.

He at least gives an answer. An answer you don't approve? Then what is your answer? Please do not give the typical atheist cop-out.

An answer that falls back on the tripe of faith, to explain whatever science hasn't yet broken through. I'm going to wind up as crazy as you pack of nut jobs if I don't stop reading this garbage.

Bye bye.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Arguing the "big bang" and creation is garbage, Wilso's got that straight.

Occam's razor destroys the creation argument. Ironic, too, as William of Occam was a christian scholar.

The theist contention that god created the universe can be questioned by demanding to know who created god. Inevitably, no matter how the theist squirms, they end by asserting that god is eternal. Applying Occam's razor, one then asks why the universe itself cannot be eternal, thus eliminating the middle man.

Evangelicals go positively whacko over the "big bang," it's one of their biggest [/i]bete noirs[/i].

Entia non sunt multiplicanda . . .

I don't know of there is a god, but a god is not logically necessary.

Very true that the existence of an eternal God is just as hard to understand as the existence of eternal Matter.

The difference is that if there is an eternal God, then we have a sufficient explanation for the beginning of life.

The existence of eternal matter cannot account for the beginning of life.

0 Replies

young thinker, there are so many tricks the theists will use to make you feel foolish, but good on you for having already reached the point you have.

Here's a site I find very handy for understanding some the attacks that will come your way.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

0 Replies

so your god is dead real life?

0 Replies

Eorl,

Is that supposed to be a joke site? I read through a lot of those topics. I really don't recall saying anything that sounds close to that stuff. It is a joke, right?

I would really like to believe it is a joke site like that one that was posted about how to tick off an atheist.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The difference is that if there is an eternal God, then we have a sufficient explanation for the beginning of life.

That sums it up perfectly. You can't explain it rationally, so you conjure up a fairy to explain it for you.

0 Replies

No Momma, it's the real deal.

Arguments for the existence of gods come in may shapes and sizes, this site lists them all (that I've ever seen) and for the most part explains where the fault lies in each one.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

No Momma, it's the real deal.

Arguments for the existence of gods come in may shapes and sizes, this site lists them all (that I've ever seen) and for the most part explains where the fault lies in each one.

Let's just look at one of these, shall we?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA010.html

Claim CA010:

Homosexuality is considered acceptable and even desirable by most evolutionists, who point out that homosexuality is common in many species.

I have heard those that you could call evolutionists on these threads make statements such as this. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible does not mention homosexuality between animals so I really don't see why anyone would even bring it up.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 2000. Evil-ution. Back to Genesis 140 (Aug.): a-c.

Response:

The acceptance of homosexuality has nothing to do with evolution. It comes from the recognition that homosexuals, like all people, deserve real love, not just lip service about love. Evolutionists (and other non-fundamentalists), including many people who believe the Bible just as much as Creationists do, are not constrained by the narrow interpretations of the people in certain rigid religions, which are the only sources why homosexuality might be considered immoral.

Yes, they deserve love, respect, and everything else we all deserve. Just because someone doesn't think marriage should be legal between them does not mean they hate them. It just means they are sticking to what they believe. If same sex marriage becomes legal, then it's legal.

Contrary to Morris' assertion, evolutionists don't consider homosexuality desirable.

Well, until a homosexual actually tells me whether homosexuality is or is not desirable, I can't address that statement and won't. I would suspect though there are those that would consider it desirable and those that wouldn't.

The pervasiveness of homosexuality throughout nature shows, beyond question, that homosexuality is natural (Bagemihl 1998), belying the only non-religious justification for hatred of homosexuality.

Sorry, have to disagree totally here. I do not hate homosexuals. I have friends that are homosexual. They KNOW I do not hate them. They also know I don't feel what they are doing is right in God's eyes but it's not a problem in our friendship whatsoever. If they don't have a problem with it, don't understand why anyone else should.

The Biblical objection to homosexuality is hypocritical, because those who condemn it do not condemn just as vigorously other prohibited behaviors such as wearing clothing made of two kinds of material (Lev. 19: 19), trimming or shaving sideburns (Lev. 19: 27), getting tattoos (Lev. 19: 28), and charging interest (Deut. 23: 19-20). People who condemn homosexuality do so not because the Bible tells them to, but, ultimately, because they want to. People who condemn others should first examine the morality of their own judgments.

First of all, we are not under the Mosasic Laws being pointed out here. Homosexuality is also pointed out in the New Testament as being an abomination to the Lord.

I completely agree with the last statement. I don't condemn anyone for their sexual preference. I am just labeled a homophobic bigot because I disagree with same sex marriage and would not vote for it if I had to vote.

Personally, I would love to see someone make a series of threads out of the topics on this site. I think it would be interesting to see just how it all would turn out, don't you? :wink:

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Very true that the existence of an eternal God is just as hard to understand as the existence of eternal Matter.

I have not posited that either concept is difficult to understand--i have pointed out that there is no logical necessity for a deity.

Quote:

The difference is that if there is an eternal God, then we have a sufficient explanation for the beginning of life.

The existence of eternal matter cannot account for the beginning of life.

Actually, the existence of eternal matter can quite nicely account for the origins of life--your simple (and simple-minded, as well as disingenuous) assertion to this effect does not make it so.

Peddle your horsie poop imaginary friend propaganda on the back of someone else's post, "real life," i did not state what you implied, and what i did state does not inevitably lead to your propaganda.

0 Replies

Momma,

The site does not claim that all theists hold all these views. It's just a catalogue of various claims that are frequently made and shows where the flaw lies in any given argument.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Momma,

The site does not claim that all theists hold all these views. It's just a catalogue of various claims that are frequently made and shows where the flaw lies in any given argument.

Understood Eorl. Didn't take it that all theists or all evolutionists, for that matter, held those views.

Really think it would be interesting series of topics.

0 Replies

I guess so, but there's little there that hasn't already popped up here somewhere.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I guess so, but there's little there that hasn't already popped up here somewhere.

It was just a thought :wink: .

0 Replies

Young_thinker,
I'm so glad there are other young people on this site who have some intelligence!! Cool

I am sixteen myself, and I have been hard-pressed to find another person around here my age with whom I can actually have an intelligent conversation. I am an atheist as well, and find myself able to agree with the majority of your views on the subject, from what I've read in this topic. I hope you stick around and participate in all the various, serious, and sometimes crazy, discussions we have on our good ol' forums.
So, once again, welcome and hope to see you around Wink

0 Replies

Crazy-D is only 16???

I had no idea...

0 Replies

Me neither.

0 Replies

Yeah, CrazyD has a good brain and some interesting poetry. And he (?) is pretty nice.

At that age, I was a complete biotch. Laughing

0 Replies

flushd,

I can't imagine you being a complete B. Just can't see it in you .

0 Replies

I'm an aethist....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know