Atheist humor

Post Reply New Topic

Oh that video...

"Give me a piece of evidence for Darwinian evolution"
"Here are four"
"Those don't count for arbitrary reasons"

Creationists do present "evidence".
-witness statements from the Bible
-probability facts to support the Teleological argument
-"All of science shows us something does not come from nothing" thus supporting the Cosmological argument

"Scientists" propose some crazy ideas to argue against these "evidences". Doctor Craig explains science's response to the Teleological argument is to say there exists an infinite number of universes, and we got lucky. Really? Seriously? Apparently, Richard Dawkins even recognizes it is a bizarre idea, as quoted by Dr. Craig, but he still thinks it more probable than a GOD. Science really bends over backwards to think of ideas to get around a creator of the universe.

You can find videos of scientists arguing that something can come from nothing under certain assumptions to argue against the Cosmological argument. Common sense tells me that a creator is much more likely than a postulated scenario of the universe coming from nothing.

Doctor Craig explains science's response to the Teleological argument ...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2uEZerll70[/youtube]

So all atheists believe in the multiverse? I don't. I don't dismiss the idea either. I can't watch videos until my internet gets fixed but from what I understand, it's the idea that the conditions of the universe are idea for life. I think the counterpoint to that is the anthropic principle. The universe could have been hostile to life but then we wouldn't be talking about it.

Or perhaps if the universe had turned out differently than life would be different. Life has shown a proclivity to adept to a wide variety of conditions. Here on Earth, life has adapted to the conditions on Earth. It's like what Douglass Adams said ?This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in ? an interesting hole I find myself in ? fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

The multiverse is a strange idea. Evolution has some strange ideas in it as well. Yet the Bible has strange ideas in it. So in choosing between Christianity or atheism, you get strange ideas either way. I don't think strangeness is proof that something isn't real. There are many strange things in the world that are still real.

Witness statements in the Bible? Are witnesses always 100% trusted? What if they never existed? What if they did exist but their story got changed after they died? The Bible is not a good proof that the Bible is true. That argument is a bit too circular.

Can something come from nothing? Yes. Either the Christians are right or the atheists are right but in either case, something came from nothing. Either God came from nothing and created everything else or the big bang came from nothing. How did time begin? Either God created time or time was a product of the big bang. Either way, time came from timelessness. Philosophers ask, why is there something rather than nothing. My answer to them, because something came from nothing. Sometimes the same arguments can be used by opposing factions.

The prime mover could have been God or the big bang but if God existed, he would be the most advanced being in existence and in my experience, the most advanced thing in a series comes at the end of the chain, not the beginning. Would the first thing to come out of nothing be the most advanced being in existence or would it start as a simple ball of energy which gradually goes through stages of increasingly complex lifelessness, then simple life followed by increasingly advanced life? Isn't it better that complexity should ramp up gradually rather than shoot up at the beginning than descend down to us?

Last edited by RetroGamer87 on 12 Aug 2014, 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Almost any naturalistic argument is superior to "a magic man did it".



In science we call that "special pleading" because God came from nothing.

First of all, show that there was once nothing. There doesn't seem to be any evidence for that.

Why do people always call them a lunatic fringe. According to the latest Gallup poll, 46% of americans believe God created man as-is within the past 10,000 years. That's 46% of all americans. If they were to poll just the americans that identify as christian, it would be over 50%. (I'm pretty sure the atheists and agnostics don't believe in young earth creationism.)

I don't know why people keep calling approx. 50% a fringe lunatic cult. By definition, half isn't considered a fringe.

Can you explain ?

Actually there are many possible responses to the teleological argument.

Hume's Epicurean hypothesis is one of the best - essentially, given enough time, it is guaranteed that a finite number of particles will form a habitable universe. This universe is at least 14 billion years old (and possibly infinitely old).

It is also possible there are multiple "right" structures. Other nucleic acids could be used to carry genetic information, or proteins themselves could. Although carbon-based life is more likely, silicon based life is also theoretically possible.

Even if we reject the idea of a multiverse (and let's be frank here, why would you reject that and accept a God? At least we know one universe exists), the universe itself is really, really big. Really big. Big. Back to Hume. There was almost bound to be a planet where life exists.

We know order can come from chaos; we know all the complexities of life have evolved from simple organic molecules.

The fact is, the evidence for the teleological argument is extremely weak. We know how complex structures arise, we don't need to appeal to a supernatural entity.

How are "witness statements from the Bible" evidence for...ANY thing in the Bible?

You cant prove any story from the story itsself. That would be circular reasoning.


Second we are only talking about the part of the Bible that is at odds with evolution. Which is the very part of the Bible that even the Bible itsself says that there were no witnesses to. That part being the first five days of creation before he fashioned Adam and Eve. According to the Bible:in those first five days there were no humans in existence to "witness" creation happening -nor to witness anything else! So how could there be "witness testimony" from the Bible relevant to evolution vs creation?

This is not evidence.



This is not true, especially when you get to graduate level physics.



As opposed to the way some bend over backwards to deny scientific proof matters?



Something coming from nothing has been measured in true vacuum. It is only arguing because certain people deny fact.



And common sense dictates that the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night. That does not make it accurate, though.



How exactly is a self proclaimed spiritual counselor, astrologer, holistic healer, and an interfaith Minister qualified to explain the way science explains anything?

Gods Damn it! Can't you creationists ever stop quote mining?

Of course it's not going to make sense if you cut out the middle of the paragraph. This is the same sort of deceitful tactic they use in their documentaries when they film a scientist but edit it so it looks like he's spouting nonsense.

If you creationists were right you wouldn't have to knowingly use dishonest tactics like this. If you can't prove something is true without lying than maybe that thing isn't worth trying to prove in the first place.

You guys should have Nineteen Eighty-Four for you're Bible. You're experts at doublethink.

I work in the legal field and witness statements are accepted as evidence. How is it not evidence? How is probability mathematics not evidence ? Many famous physicists and Richard Dawkins explain away the "fine tuning" (improbable mathematics), because it would happen randomly per the multiverse.




You are making an outrageous claim that scientists can actually create matter out of nothing. Not a quantum vacuum where energy is transferred from one form to another - no - you are saying scientists can make matter out of nothing.



Science makes stuff up without evidence as I cited above. These are not proofs, just hypothesis (conjecture).



Scientists do not create matter out of nothing. We should be able to easily find such a violation of the Law of Thermodynamics.



Correct.



Because he can read, and speak. Your question is nonsense.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 13 Aug 2014, 12:09 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Circular reasoning seems to be the whole point. I always have to laugh when people try to convince non-believers by quoting Bible verses. Bible verses are only "evidence" if you have already accepted the whole premise that God exists and the Bible is the word of God/divinely inspired. If you do not already believe that, Bible verses are completely meaningless. It is like trying to prove Hobbits exist by quoting from The Hobbit.

And that is not working so well. Often witnesses make false statements (deliberately or accidentally). Many people misremember things, or even have constructed memories. I saw a tv show where they did a test by asking them about the Bijlmer air crash in 1992: they asked people whether they remember the video footage of the plane crashing into the appartment building. Many people said they remembered, but there are no images until after the plane had crashed. So a large amount of people are simply unreliable withnesses without realising it. It is called confabulation: people making up their own fake memories to fill up the holes.
There have even been cases of people who have been convicted because of false confessions. They claimed to be guilty when it was later proven they were not guilty. These days in the Netherlands just a confession is not enough to convict someone, there needs to be evidence from multiple sources and not just a confession from a suspect.

If witness statements from the Bible are legally acceptable evidence and if this evidence proves the creation story is true then why didn't the creationists win the Scopes Monkey Trial?

(notice how I didn't cut the middle out of your paragraph?)

Historians translate hieroglyphics as evidence of life thousands of years before Christ. Do you think that is not evidence?

When you see ancient texts it is of course a good assumption that they were written down by living things like humans. But there is no reason to trust that what the ancient texts say is true. Do you consider hieroglyphics evidence for the Egyptian gods?