Atheism is the best

[Burrow Owl]

teacher wrote:

LOGIC PRESUPPOSES GOD because LOGIC can only exist and be known if there is an unchangeable objective source and standard of LOGIC.the SOURCE of LOGIC must have a MIND because LOGIC can only exist in the realm of the MIND.our own minds cannot be the source of LOGIC because that would render the laws of LOGIC not absolute and therefore subjective.if the laws of LOGIC are not absolute then this would be DIRECT EVIDENCE that atheists suck at life LOL.how can u prove or disprove anything if LOGIC is not absolute??? game over.

This load of circular drivel is your proof that your Magic Man is real?
LOL! With a mind as logical as yours, I'll bet your local used car salesmen get wood whenever you walk by.

[teacher]

Burrow Owl wrote:

<quoted text>
This load of circular drivel is your proof that your Magic Man is real?
LOL! With a mind as logical as yours, I'll bet your local used car salesmen get wood whenever you walk by.

LOL good one.let me ask u this ... IS LOGIC OBJECTIVE or SUBJECTIVE???

[teacher]

i have 3 questions for evolutionists.QUESTION #1 why would life evolve the ability to reproduce when that would just increase competition for the food supply??? QUESTION #2 why would sexual reproduction evolve from asexual reproduction when asexual reproduction is much easier??? QUESTION #3 if the male cannot reproduce without the female and the female cannot reproduce without the male,then how did sexual reproduction evolve???

[Roland_Deschain]

teacher wrote:

<quoted text>god did not create LOGIC u DEMONIC D*CK EATER!!!

Please do not project your religious, homo-erotic fantasies onto me you weirdo.

teacher wrote:

LOGIC is a part of god.it is the very nature of how his mind works.in order for LOGIC to be used at all,IT MUST BE OBJECTIVE

I agree logic must be objective. I never argued otherwise. Your previous post only stated a relationship between your 'god' and logic. If you check back you will see I was asking what you meant by this.

teacher wrote:

<quoted text>
.how can u as an atheist use LOGIC while talking about evolution when LOGIC would have to be SUBJECTIVE???

Where did I say logic had be subjective? Science is based on observation, investigation, peer review and experimentation, these are objective, not subjective.

If you believe logic is part of the thing you call god then you must believe it is part of humans too:

Genesis 1:27 - God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

So, if your 'god' created every one with logic why does science, of which logic is part, scare Christians so much?

teacher wrote:

here is some LOGIC for u ... if it were not for the spread of christianity,u would still be BLOWING RODS like the greeks and romans.

I am unsure what you mean by the term 'blowing rods', is this something you do in your trailer park?

If you read some history books you would discover the Greeks and Romans were extremely advanced. The Romans had running water, flush toilets, under floor heating, bricks, tiles, the ability to carry out surgical procedures including cataract removal / lens replacement, hospitals for their military and a high level of cleanliness. The Greeks provided us with the basis of modern mathematics, medicine and philosophy among other things. They did all this without the 'benefits' of your silly death cult and its associated story book.

[Roland_Deschain]

teacher wrote:

i have 3 questions for evolutionists.QUESTION #1 why would life evolve the ability to reproduce when that would just increase competition for the food supply??? QUESTION #2 why would sexual reproduction evolve from asexual reproduction when asexual reproduction is much easier??? QUESTION #3 if the male cannot reproduce without the female and the female cannot reproduce without the male,then how did sexual reproduction evolve???

I found quite a good answer to this here:

http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.ht...

Let me ask you a question.

How likely do you think it is, given the wide diversity of the human race, that it all started from 1 person having sex with his female clone? The bible clearly states Eve was created from Adam's rib.

Genesis

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

[redneck]

Kerdy 1 wrote:

"Atheism is the best"
If you are a moron.

Listing the most advanced minds in history, and pointing out their atheism would do no good in yiur creten mind.

[redneck]

teacher wrote:

i have 3 questions for evolutionists.QUESTION #1 why would life evolve the ability to reproduce when that would just increase competition for the food supply??? QUESTION #2 why would sexual reproduction evolve from asexual reproduction when asexual reproduction is much easier??? QUESTION #3 if the male cannot reproduce without the female and the female cannot reproduce without the male,then how did sexual reproduction evolve???

Evolution has been PROVEN, creationism is a story. And you are a idiot.

[aveteran]

teacher wrote:

<quoted text>yes,freedom is a beautiful gift from god and i thank him that i do not have to listen to your foolishness as well.REMEMBER THIS,if our rights come from god then man cannot take away our rights but if our rights come from man then they can be taken away by man.you are either a follower of god or a follower of man.

You'll see throughout history that rights HAVE been taken away from people. Blows a big hole in your bogus "theory".

[aveteran]

teacher wrote:

<quoted text>LOL dude,you ever notice how most atheists are nerds??? LOL i wonder if atheism carries a nerd gene LOL.

Nope, just an intelligence gene. Something you wouldn't know about.

[aveteran]

teacher wrote:

<quoted text>um ... how about LOGIC LOL.if u are going to deny causality then i am done talking to u sir LOL.THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE CANNOT COME FROM WITHIN THE UNIVERSE IT SELF.that is absurd.do u believe in the fairytale multiverse??? if so,then u just admitted there was an OUTSIDE cause that birthed this universe.

And if you're going to spew unsupported and false assumptions out your backside, done as well.

[aveteran]

teacher wrote:

<quoted text>i dealt with this already.morality is a universal concept in man because man was made in the image of god.this is why animals have no concept of morality.animals could give a rats ass about morality.

More unfounded garbage.

[aveteran]

teacher wrote:

<quoted text>listen my friend,WE KNOW THAT SOMETHING NEVER HAD A CAUSE BECAUSE SOMETHING HAD TO HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED.nobody is questioning that.the problem for u is that we know the universe began in a singularity.since this universe began,then it requires a cause that never began.as for information in dna,this is no assumption.that is EXACTLY what dna is.

More false assumptions and lies.

BTW, DNA is simply a chain of molecules. Nothing more.

[aveteran]

teacher wrote:

<quoted text>1st of all,u can never use evil as an evidence against god because if all the bad things in this world is evidence against god then all the good things in this world is evidence for god.second of all,the fact that u recognize evil exists presupposes god because u have to assume there is an objective standard upon which it is based.ALSO,god does not allow evil,rather mankind allows evil by abuseing free will.without free will,love would be rendered meaningless.as for the cosmological argument,i am not saying god is the cause because god is the cause LOL.that would be ABSURD.the cause requires the attributes of god ... immaterial,timeless,powerfull, intelligent and your favorite ... PERSONAL.why do i say personal??? well,if the cause of the universe was impersonal,then how could it do something it had not done from infinity past???(big bang) with the teleological argument,i hope u are not saying it is due to chance!!! LOL no scientist would claim that today.as for the moral argument,HOW CAN MATTER IN MOTION be MORAL??? if we are just matter in motion,then an objective moral law would be impossible.plus,if there was a universal moral law by nature,then why is it solely a human phenomenon???

Strange.... the Bible says your god CREATED evil. Therefore, your god IS evil.

[aveteran]

teacher wrote:

<quoted text>in all honesty ... atheists are serving a good purpose because u challenge us to know our faith and to research our faith.

And yet you still fail miserably.

[aveteran]

teacher wrote:

LOGIC PRESUPPOSES GOD because LOGIC can only exist and be known if there is an unchangeable objective source and standard of LOGIC.the SOURCE of LOGIC must have a MIND because LOGIC can only exist in the realm of the MIND.our own minds cannot be the source of LOGIC because that would render the laws of LOGIC not absolute and therefore subjective.if the laws of LOGIC are not absolute then this would be DIRECT EVIDENCE that atheists suck at life LOL.how can u prove or disprove anything if LOGIC is not absolute??? game over.

Logic dictates you're a loon for believing in spurious sky-spooks.

[Lil Ticked]

aveteran wrote:

<quoted text>Logic dictates you're a loon for believing in spurious sky-spooks.

Now this is what I find funny. Why can't you have faith in a higher power and be an open minded free thinker as well? What if I don't want to have to choose a side?

[Roland_Deschain]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>
Now this is what I find funny.

Some people are easily amused.

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>
Why can't you have faith in a higher power and be an open minded free thinker as well?

IMHO faith in a deity is taking the 'I do not understand so it must be magic' approach.

There is a massive difference between faith (belief without proof) that something definitely exists and having a mind open to any possibility. This is the basic difference between religion and science. Religion is fixed, it depends on dogma, threats, fear, peer pressure and manipulation. Science adapts, it uses observation, experimentation, logical definition of its goals and peer review.

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>
What if I don't want to have to choose a side?

You have three choices, choose superstition, sit on the fence and dither or look for answers to your questions by doing research.

[Lil Ticked]

Roland_Deschain wrote:

<quoted text>
Some people are easily amused.
<quoted text>
IMHO faith in a deity is taking the 'I do not understand so it must be magic' approach.
There is a massive difference between faith (belief without proof) that something definitely exists and having a mind open to any possibility. This is the basic difference between religion and science. Religion is fixed, it depends on dogma, threats, fear, peer pressure and manipulation. Science adapts, it uses observation, experimentation, logical definition of its goals and peer review.
<quoted text>
You have three choices, choose superstition, sit on the fence and dither or look for answers to your questions by doing research.

I am doing the research (kinda , I am a bit lazy)

I question everything (too much so, I am a bit crazy)

I just think that there is more out there than pure fact and tangible substance can explain.
I want to understand the intangible , the things that can not be tested (yet). I want to know all of the whys and what-fors.
I mean everything is basically made up of the same materials in different combinations and scientists (i think I read this somewhere) say that even our individual cells have a form of intelligence. So if we expand on those ideas .... where does that take us? I don't know yet but, I would like to find out.
Now I don't see religion as fixed. I see it as flexible, manipulatable, bending to interpretations and the opinions of the interpretors. I will admit that the religious institutions don't adapt to change very easily and when they do they are called hypocrites and the such (and maybe they are). That doesn't not mean that all individuals that believe in a higher power are frightened and ignorant of the truth. I am sure that some have settled and refuse to look further into themselves and why they believe but, some of us harbor no such fears.
If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing beyond the veil of death , that there is no "God" and not just speculation and the majority view, then I would change my stance and adjust my point of perspective on the subject at hand.

(whew ,, long winded on that one)

[Roland_Deschain]

Reply Part 1

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>
I am doing the research (kinda , I am a bit lazy)
I question everything (too much so, I am a bit crazy)
I just think that there is more out there than pure fact and tangible substance can explain.
I want to understand the intangible , the things that can not be tested (yet). I want to know all of the whys and what-fors.

I agree there is a lot we do not understand yet. How does this prove there is a 'supreme being? Science is about making the best use of all available information to explain the world around us. As new discoveries are made science adapts and adjusts its explanations accordingly or devises new explanations..it's an ongoing learning process. Consider what we understood and could do 200 years ago and look at what we are capable of now.

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>
Now I don't see religion as fixed. I see it as flexible, manipulatable, bending to interpretations and the opinions of the interpretors.

Religion is fixed within the parameters of its 'holy' books. However, I do agree there can be a huge variation in how these are interpreted. Consider Christianity, after 2000 years its followers are still unable to agree on what they are following and how to worship it. How many versions of Christianity are there?

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>
I will admit that the religious institutions don't adapt to change very easily and when they do they are called hypocrites and the such (and maybe they are).

Religious institutions do not like any changes which reduce their position of power and income. They are now losing both of these as people become more educated and sceptical. Why do you think Christianity is so scared of atheism, secularism and humanism? It is because all of these threaten its position of power and expose it as nothing but silly superstition. There are massive cracks appearing in the Anglican church due to bigotry over sexual orientation, while the Catholic Church is losing money hand over fist and having to pay out massive compensation to victims of its pedophile 'priests'.

[Roland_Deschain]

Reply Part 2

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>
That doesn't not mean that all individuals that believe in a higher power are frightened and ignorant of the truth. I am sure that some have settled and refuse to look further into themselves and why they believe but, some of us harbor no such fears.

If people want to believe in a 'higher power' that is up to them. However, I do not understand why a rational, educated adult would need to do this. If you went to your doctors and told them you thought an invisible donkey was living in your bathroom they would question your sanity. Yet millions of people around the world profess religious belief in some sort of invisible friend, start wars in its name, run countries on the teachings of its ancient books, prevent their children from receiving medical treatment because they think it will heal them and other assorted nonsense.

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>
If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing beyond the veil of death
, that there is no "God" and not just speculation and the majority view, then I would change my stance and adjust my point of perspective on the subject at hand.
(whew ,, long winded on that one)

You have things the wrong way round here. Religion has made ridiculous claims about what happens after we die to force people into becoming believers. It is up to religion to prove these. This is no different from a court of law which requires guilt to be proved, not innocence.

It is not possible to arrive at any conclusion / carry out any discussion regarding 'god' unless it has been accurately defined. This description needs to outline what it is / is not and conditions under which it can be proved false. This is how science works. Until this has been done the word 'god' is meaningless as are religions' claims that such a thing exists.