Velocity_Boy Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 So I played along and read the OP story and was pretty much believing it was a true account. Until I got to this part, that is................. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.) ................................................................................................... Then I realized this was probably all made up and was just written by the debate author as a tactic, a vehicle, if you will, to espouse and justify his own personal belief in god. The reason I feel this was is that no college science professor would have answered that question of Evolution like that. Since we did NOT evolve from monkeys. Not even close. This is not how it works and anybody with even a cursory understanding of Evolution knows this. At least they should. Also the Proff would have been able to come up with examples of observing evolution with his own eyes. This is an easy one for any Evolutionist. I myself would cite our very own vestigial traits that we h. sapiens have. I would also mention the plethora of transitional fossils we have in museums all over the planet that show us a step-by-step account of Evolution. I would also mention modern day species that have evolved in very recent time, such as that "spotted soot moth" in England that got darker in the cities during the Industrial Revolution. I would then as a professor explain to the little snot the difference between justified faith and unjustified faith. Sure, in science we use faith. But usually because of a past track record. Past observations. Past experiences that show our expected result has a very good chance of occurring. I expect water to boil at 212 degrees or so at sea level since every time I have heated it to this temp in the past it has indeed boiled. Faith in gods or Jewish carpenters who rise from the dead after three days in a cave, however, do not enjoy this past track record of proven and observed results. The student's claim that there was no such thing as cold is also word-fencing at its worst. We all know what cold is and we have experienced it. We can define it with numbers and formulas. Not so with gods. So I gotta call "cough cough (bool-shite) on this account. Nice try at getting your belief across however. But next time you would do well to give college level science guys more credit than you gave your fictitious professor. Thanks! 1
seriously disabled Posted September 10, 2016 Posted September 10, 2016 (edited) The proof is overwhelming that God does not exist. If God really existed then the world would have been a much better place without pain, suffering, ugliness, death, diseases, disabilities, extreme poverty and many other bad things. When I'm in trouble and I ask God for help He doesn't help me in any way or form which proves that he doesn't exist because if God really existed then he would have helped people when they are in trouble. Many features of the natural world point to the nonexistence of God. For example... 1. Why did God need to create animals including mankind, who need to painfully kill and eat other animals to survive? If God was all-powerful and good then the entire food chain would not have existed because God would have fed everyone of Mana from heaven and there would be no hunger, starvation and predation of animals. The fact that we need to painfully kill animals to live proves that there is no God. 2. If God was really good and all-powerful then there wouldn't be so many diseases and disabilities which maim and some even kill innocent people including young children indiscriminately. 3. Supposedly man after he dies lives in gods eternal heaven in eternal happiness. But if this is true then why did he create sin and punishment on Earth? Why did he create Hell? Why not create a world with men that are motivated to be caring and loving beings, just like him, with no desire to be selfish, greedy and mean? Religious fanatics claim that man has chosen to be evil because of his 'free will'. This is totally specious because 'Free will' does not imply or require evil or immoral conduct. A good benevolent God could have created man as a loving and caring creature with free will but without any desire or ability to hurt other people. Besides, God has created other limitations on man's 'free will'. He created hunger pains to force man to eat and drink? He created suffocation panic to force man to breathe? and a powerful sex drive to force man to procreate, frequently in excess of man's ability to feed and care for his creations! Edited September 10, 2016 by seriously disabled
dimreepr Posted September 10, 2016 Posted September 10, 2016 You, really, need to understand what proof actually means. And also, please consider the implication of "The proof is overwhelming that God does not exist." in this context. 1
Tampitump Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 Good thing we don't sit around basing our lives around all of the things that MIGHT, or COULD exist. That could be damn well anything and everything you could dream up. We judge propositions based on what evidence there is in support of them. If there is no compelling support for it, you don't accept it. Its just that damn simple. The debate has been over for a very long time as far as I'm concerned. The topic should have been dropped, and disbelief assumed after the first conversation like this was had. It should not require this many repititions of this argument to finally put this topic to rest. Its a very simple concept, and people apply it to every other claim every single day without issue. Yet, the religious/god belief somehow puts on the blinders for people.
dimreepr Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 (edited) You're not an atheist or scientist then ; since you don't seem to even consider the possibility that god or wisdom in the words of the bible (major versions) exists, lack of evidence works both ways. Edited September 11, 2016 by dimreepr
Strange Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 You're not an atheist or scientist then ; since you don't seem to even consider the possibility that god or wisdom in the words of the bible (major versions) exists, lack of evidence works both ways. So are you saying that we should give exactly the same weight to the possibility of leprechauns, all the variety of human gods, monsters under the bead, centaurs and invisible pink unicorns as we do to those things that have clear evidence supporting them? Or should we, perhaps, be willing to dismiss some of these as unlikely to exist? (Note that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" trope is in many cases, including this one, a fallacy.) 1
dimreepr Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 So are you saying that we should give exactly the same weight to the possibility of leprechauns, all the variety of human gods, monsters under the bead, centaurs and invisible pink unicorns as we do to those things that have clear evidence supporting them? Of course not, I'm just pointing out the possibility exists.
Tampitump Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 You're not an atheist or scientist then ; since you don't seem to even consider the possibility that god or wisdom in the words of the bible (major versions) exists, lack of evidence works both ways.You talking to me?
Strange Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 (edited) Of course not, I'm just pointing out the possibility exists. But, with no evidence being found (even after millennia) that possibility approaches zero. Edited September 11, 2016 by Strange 1
zapatos Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 But, with no evidence being found (even after millennia) that possibility approaches zero. Is that accurate? I'd agree that the possibility of us ever finding evidence approaches zero, but I'm not sure our lack of evidence of a supernatural being means the likelihood of its existence approaches zero. If we knew how to look for evidence of a god the possibility might approach zero, as we could begin to eliminate places he could be hiding. But we may simply be looking in the wrong place or at the wrong time. I'm not sure we can say anything at all about the possibility of a god. On the other hand, I think we can say that the existence of a god who provides us with testable attributes (e.g. praying to him will increase the likelihood of winning a football game) can approach zero over time.
Strange Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 I wasn't necessarily thinking of evidence for a "god", specifically. Because, as you say, that is not a concept with well-defined testable attributes. It is certainly true for unicorns, say. (And I think the case could be made regarding certain versions of "god".) More here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Absence_of_evidence
Ophiolite Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 On the other hand, I think we can say that the existence of a god who provides us with testable attributes (e.g. praying to him will increase the likelihood of winning a football game) can approach zero over time. The corollary of this suggests that betting on Brazil could cause a God to come into existence.
seriously disabled Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) If God really exists then to me he looks more like a narcissistic bully than an all-loving and caring father. If God treats you so cruelly during life, then why do you think that he will let you enjoy eternal peace in his heaven? Edited September 12, 2016 by seriously disabled
zapatos Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 If God really exists then to me he looks more like a narcissistic bully than an all-loving and caring father. If God treats you so cruelly during life, then why do you think that he will let you enjoy eternal peace in his heaven? It looks to me as if he really exists, then he is ignoring us completely. Do you really believe that your lot in life is the result of a bully God, rather than as a result of nature?
seriously disabled Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 It looks to me as if he really exists, then he is ignoring us completely. Do you really believe that your lot in life is the result of a bully God, rather than as a result of nature? I don't know really. It's a difficult question. It could equally likely be the result of a bully God as the result of the laws of nature.
dimreepr Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) If God really exists then to me he looks more like a narcissistic bully than an all-loving and caring father. If God treats you so cruelly during life, then why do you think that he will let you enjoy eternal peace in his heaven? I don't care if he exist's, it's just a metaphor for our desire to have others/magic fix our problems. Life can be cruel, ask a Syrian, and like those poor refugees you have a choice, wait for someone to fix your problems or do something about it; just remember, it's no-one else's job to fix your troubles, it's yours So are you saying that we should give exactly the same weight to the possibility of leprechauns, all the variety of human gods, monsters under the bead, centaurs and invisible pink unicorns as we do to those things that have clear evidence supporting them? Or should we, perhaps, be willing to dismiss some of these as unlikely to exist? (Note that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" trope is in many cases, including this one, a fallacy.) "You're not an atheist or scientist then ; since you don't seem to even consider the possibility that god or wisdom is in the words of the bible (major versions) exists, lack of evidence works both ways." My point being, the NT - OT - god = wisdom is possible... Edited September 12, 2016 by dimreepr
Strange Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 "You're not an atheist or scientist then ; since you don't seem to even consider the possibility that god or wisdom is in the words of the bible (major versions) exists, lack of evidence works both ways." My point being, the NT - OT - god = wisdom is possible... I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that there are some wise words in the Bible, even if you take out / dismiss the concept of god? That may well be true (I haven't read much of the NT). But I don't see what it has to do with "not an atheist or scientist".
dimreepr Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 But I don't see what it has to do with "not an atheist or scientist". That was part of an answer to post #30
seriously disabled Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 Just because there are some wise words in the bible doesn't make the concept of God or Gods for that matter any more likely or believable. There is zero evidence for any God/Gods so unless someone can show me otherwise I stand by the fact that there is no God.
seriously disabled Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 Watch "Wizard of oz"... What does that supposed to mean? The rest of your post is foolish.
dimreepr Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 The wizard is supposed to be god and the rest is the path to find him.
Tampitump Posted September 24, 2016 Posted September 24, 2016 The wizard is supposed to be god and the rest is the path to find him. Yeah, but then they figure out that the god is nothing more than a Charlatan behind a curtain with no powers, and that everything they they needed, that they sought for this god to give them, was already within them. There is zero evidence for any God/Gods so unless someone can show me otherwise I stand by the fact that there is no God. I'm not sure that this is fair to say. That there is no apparent or forthcoming evidence or reasons to believe such a being exists, and therefore I live my life as if there is no such thing as a god would be fairer I believe. However, given the choice between the two positive assertions "god exists" and "god does not exist", I would go with the latter every time. Though I don't think it is a defensible position, it is at least more defensible than the former.
Itoero Posted September 24, 2016 Posted September 24, 2016 There is zero evidence for any God/Gods so unless someone can show me otherwise I stand by the fact that there is no God.It's not a fact.
Recommended Posts