Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Jan 8, '13 at 10:25pm

Bobthebest

Bobthebest

28 posts

People want to follow the god in the bible because they need to know that some one or something will/can save them. It's called faith. And it's stupid.

 

Posted Jan 8, '13 at 10:31pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

5,011 posts

Where are you quoting from EmperorPalpatine?

That's what I'd likely say if I were still in it and arguments I've heard, not necessarily my personal views.

Why would anyone want to follow such a god as portrayed in the Bible?

"Because the rewards are great."

I'll do some research and get back to you on the rest of that.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 12:25am

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

3,454 posts

Well you guys are seeming all high and mighty, so answere this. How was life supposed have have come from inamate objects (the origins of said objects you can only explain as "poof, objects") that have no will, intelligence or power to do anything other than the basic nature of rocks, gasses etc. furthermore how we're they supposed to have gotten any energy in the first place? Or did they get that when they randomly appeared out of nowhere? And remember, after you say to yourself or to me "I don't know" or "not a clue" when we say something like that then you go ahead and say that all of Christianity is idiocy because the bible doesn't expressly say just how every single animal in the ram was fed.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 12:26am

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

3,454 posts

Ark, not ram. It makes more sense this way.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 12:45am

Kasic

Kasic

5,590 posts

How was life supposed have have come from inamate objects (the origins of said objects you can only explain as "poof, objects") that have no will, intelligence or power to do anything other than the basic nature of rocks, gasses etc.

Chemical reactions which were formed through coincidence (although on the scale of the universe, inevitability) that replicated.

Google Abiogenesis. No, it's not the same thing as spontaneous generation.

furthermore how we're they supposed to have gotten any energy in the first place?

If you mean energy as in food, chemicals don't eat.
If you mean energy as in thermodynamics, there's a big thing in the sky called the sun which is constantly having nuclear reactions within it.

Or did they get that when they randomly appeared out of nowhere?

Spontaneous generation has been thoroughly disproved.

after you say to yourself or to me "I don't know" or "not a clue"

Well, seems I didn't do that.

when we say something like that then you go ahead and say that all of Christianity is idiocy because the bible doesn't expressly say just how every single animal in the ram was fed.

1) I never said that all of Christianity is idiocy.
2) It is idiotic to believe that two of every kind of animal could fit onto a boat as described in the Bible, eat and drink for 40 days without killing each other off, after the amount of water on the world increased something around 20 times over in volume and then disappeared again, and THEN breed from just two of each animal to the current amount of animals there are today, all of which occurred just around 5000 years ago.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 1:08am

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

3,454 posts

Yes, I know what that is and no there isn't any real proof now is there? Another but of guesswork because that's the only thig to fit the agenda.

It's pretty obvious that it's been disproved, a 3 year old could have told you that. But now what's your theory since it had to come from somewhere, oh that's right, there is no God so there is no explanation since it wasn't created by a higher being and it didn't just appear.

I don't suppose that there's any actual profe of that (back to abiogenesis)? Or what chemicles or how much etc. if we can't even figure that out or recreate it than how did it happen so perfectly on accident? I just looked up the definition of that on my IPod's dictionary and it says "the technical term for spontaneous generation" so there you go, stuff randomly appearing just like you said was disproven.

You just called it idiocy.

Has man ever created life? A livig cell, a single love cell? No. And even if by chance it is done all that proves is that of takes great skill and knowledge to create it.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 1:10am

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

3,454 posts

Sorry about yet another double post, I frequently to see things after I post.

Yes sure you didn't say I don't know, but you also didn't say anything else, like how it actually happened so you basically said I don't know without actually saying it.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 1:12am

Bobthebest

Bobthebest

28 posts

Has man ever created life? A livig cell, a single love cell? No

Yes and no, we have cultured cells and made more, but we have not made a new cell from scratch.

I never said that all of Christianity is idiocy.

You implied it.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 1:16am

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

3,454 posts

Thank you twice bob! Exactly my point, never been created from scratch even as advanced as we are but yet you think it's perfectly logical to think it happened by accident despite this fact and the lack of facts supporting it.

And yes you most certainly did imply it on many an occasion.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 1:29am

Kasic

Kasic

5,590 posts

Yes, I know what that is and no there isn't any real proof now is there?

Depends what you consider "real proof."

Scientists have emulated what we believe to be early earth conditions and self replicating amino acids formed.

Another but of guesswork because that's the only thig to fit the agenda.

Back to guesswork are we? Good. Then you won't have any trouble giving me that "guesswork" in evolution, which you said there was so much of.

. But now what's your theory since it had to come from somewhere

Abiogenesis doesn't have to do with the Big Bang theory either. Please pick another card.

there is no God so there is no explanation since it wasn't created by a higher being and it didn't just appear.

There are explanations. We've told you some of them.

I don't suppose that there's any actual profe of that (back to abiogenesis)?

It's currently the most widely accepted theory, but there's not nearly as much evidence for it as evolution.

Mostly where it is at is "if conditions were like this then it would have been possible for it to occur this way." in terms of definitively proven.

Or what chemicles or how much etc.

I see you didn't google it.

if we can't even figure that out or recreate it than how did it happen so perfectly on accident?

Well, let's take a look at the whole picture.

How many galaxies are there?
How stars in each galaxy are there?
How many planets are around each star?
Out of those hundreds of thousands of trillions, it's pretty much inevitable from an odds perspective on those chemicals being combined.

I just looked up the definition of that on my IPod's dictionary and it says "the technical term for spontaneous generation"

Your IPod needs a new dictionary. Like I said, google it. Read the wiki at least.

stuff randomly appearing just like you said was disproven.

Spontaneous Generation has been disproved.
Abiogenesis is not Spontaneous Generation. If it was, it would be called Spontaneous Generation.

You just called it idiocy.

I called one literal interpretation of an event in the Bible idiocy.

Has man ever created life?

Depends what you mean by created life. If you mean an entirely new creature that you can hold in the palm of your hand, no.
If you mean manipulating genes and what not to create something different, yes.

A livig cell, a single love cell?

...what is a love cell?

And even if by chance it is done all that proves is that of takes great skill and knowledge to create it.

Actually, from what I know the problem isn't that we don't have the knowledge. We don't have the tools to work at such a level as to "put together" a cell.

like how it actually happened so you basically said I don't know without actually saying it.

If you mean I didn't assert something as 100% fact without having enough evidence behind my claim to say such, you're right, I didn't.

That's because I'm not a fool. We can only go with what we know.

If we don't know something, we try to learn it. We don't just ascribe every unknown thing to some magic man in the sky with absolutely no reason to do so.

I can tell you right here, when you say "know" and I say "know" we're not saying the same thing.

You're using "know" as "irrefutably to be such" while I'm using it as "from what we can see and logically infer."

You implied it.

Again, I said the literal interpretation of a single event in the Bible was idiocy.

Exactly my point, never been created from scratch even as advanced as we are but yet you think it's perfectly logical to think it happened by accident despite this fact and the lack of facts supporting it.

Abiogenesis does not state that a rabbit hopped out of the primordial ocean.

And yes you most certainly did imply it on many an occasion.

I won't deny many parts of it are idiotic.

Most of what isn't idiotic comes in the form of advice or wisdom. Almost all of the stories are logically bs if you take them literally.

 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!