News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Serious Question!

Started by bamaboydylan, June 29, 2014, 02:12:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

PickelledEggs

Quote from: bamaboydylan on June 29, 2014, 02:42:15 AM
But seriously, why is what I believe in ignorant?
It's ignorant because it's based on nothing but speculation.

It's willful ignorance because you are choosing it.

bamaboydylan

I completely agree with you. I wouldn't consider it ignorant though unless you consider atheism ignorant as well.
How are you sure that God doesn't exist?

PickelledEggs

Quote from: bamaboydylan on June 29, 2014, 02:51:57 AM
I completely agree with you. I wouldn't consider it ignorant though unless you consider atheism ignorant as well.
How are you sure that God doesn't exist?
I am only sure of the things that can be tested and repeated in nature through a scientific process.

That means I don't claim what cannot be proven.

As to your question, Which god are you referring to? Please narrow it down so I can answer it accordingly

bamaboydylan

I am referring to the God that creationist believe created the universe.

Also, I have not claimed anything to be a fact. I am simply sharing what I believe in. I'm not trying to force anything on you.

PickelledEggs

Quote from: bamaboydylan on June 29, 2014, 02:59:38 AM
I am referring to the God that creationist believe created the universe.

Also, I have not claimed anything to be a fact. I am simply sharing what I believe in. I'm not trying to force anything on you.

So Yahweh?

PickelledEggs

If you are referring to the Christian god from the old and new testament, Yahweh, I am no less than 100% sure that he doesn't exist.

bamaboydylan

#21
Well it isn't for sure that he doesn't though. It's not a provable fact that he does or doesn't you have to choose.

GSOgymrat

Quote from: bamaboydylan on June 29, 2014, 02:12:34 AM
I believe in God and creation. I understand that atheist do not. There is no way for me to prove that God exist. A belief is just a choice. I choose to believe in it. Why do atheist choose to believe there isn't a God?

You say there is no way for you to prove your god exists. If there is a god but I can't sense it, understand it or communicate with it then why should I believe? Why should I even think about it?

PickelledEggs

Well how about this. Yahweh made Adam and eve about 6000 years ago, according to the faith that claims his existence.

Evolution is a provable claim that met it's burden of proof with tons of overwhelming evidence. It very bluntly contradicts the claim of creationism.

If Yahweh's debut act was creating everything in the universe in 7 days and just one scientific discovery can contradict it, think about when you throw in all the other discoveries? 

eg: the vastness of outer space, the spherical shape of our earth, the realization that incest will harbor horrible genetic mutations (I'm talking about Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able)

There are trees living today that are older than the model of the world creationists believe in.

Maybe it is possible to prove that something doesn't exist, depending on what is is. :lol:

bamaboydylan

Where is all the proof of evolution? Didn't Darwin himself say that his theory is absurd when it comes to complexity of our bodies and world? I'm not here to throw the Bible in anyone's face, but I am here to make you realize that atheist have no right to claim their belief as 100% fact than do Christians.

bamaboydylan

#25
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 29, 2014, 03:36:07 AM
You say there is no way for you to prove your god exists. If there is a god but I can't sense it, understand it or communicate with it then why should I believe? Why should I even think about it?

The reason why you should think about it is because, let's just say God is real and there is an afterlife.

You can't prove to me that he is fake, and I can't prove that he is real so we are just saying what if right now.

If he is real and my belief system holds up then I have a positive afterlife and you don't.

There is no gamble for me but there is a gamble for you.

If he is fake then we both get nothing after this and it doesn't matter. At least with my belief system there is some light at the end of the tunnel for me.


PickelledEggs

Quote from: bamaboydylan on June 29, 2014, 03:49:18 AM
Where is all the proof of evolution? Didn't Darwin himself say that his theory is absurd when it comes to complexity of our bodies and world? I'm not here to throw the Bible in anyone's face, but I am here to make you realize that atheist have no right to claim their belief as 100% fact than do Christians.
lmao. Try quoting the entire thing he said.

When he started by saying that it was supposed to be like in Shakespear's Cesar When Marc Anthony says "I'm not here to praise him, I'm here to bury him"

Here is the full quote:
Quote from: Charles DarwinTo 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.
We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.

-insert coin to try again-

bamaboydylan

#27
All I stated is that Darwin himself said it was absurd and he did say that...how does the rest of what he said prove evolution? Was he there when everything evolved?

PickelledEggs

Quote from: bamaboydylan on June 29, 2014, 04:08:24 AM
All that says is that he doesn't really know and that evolution is his best guess...
-insert coin to try again-

Sent from your mom


bamaboydylan

Why is it that atheist always bash Christians for Bible thumping and throwing our beliefs on you and yet in reality that's what you are doing. I am just asking simple questions that you are refusing to answer.