Why don't you believe?

…and he loves being Cranky! Loveable Cranky old fart :dash:

1 Like

Indeed. Theists seem to think in binary terms. Either the universe emerged from unknown processes culminating in the Big Bang, or a god called Jehovah with a son called Jesus did it. That’s a false dichotomy. Even if every cosmological theory and the theory of evolution were proved entirely false, your particular version of the god theory would not be strengthened at all.

The discovery that a theory is false is an important step forward. By discovering dead-ends, we gradually work our way through the maze toward true understanding. Indoctrination and orthodoxy keep theists locked in their dead-ends.

Why are there chameleon eyes, fly eyes, octopus eyes, spider eyes? Did god need to try various different systems before hitting on the right one? That doesn’t sound like a supreme omniscient being. It sounds like Thomas Edison trying to invent the light bulb.

Let us not forget that before DNA, there was RNA. So if there was a god, this is more evidence this god did not get things right the first time.

Assuming there is a god, what conclusion can we make? Is the bible correct? It can not be, this bible claims god is …

Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

So is the bible incorrect, of this god a bumbling incompetent?

@Henry Shymexx:

Grow the fuck up and read another book. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH A GOD. NOTHING. You do not prove your god’s existence by disproving evolution. You do not win by default. You want to have a discussion about overturning evolution, GO TALK TO A FUCKING BIOLOGIST!

You want to prove your god exists---- Offer some fucking evidence!


Have like because distance and corona virus make a hug impossible.

Nicest compliment in 30 years. My last girl friend was a decade ago. She said I have wicked eyes.

Oh this is going to be good

Hello. Im new here and trying to understand the quirks of atheists.

And already the insidious well poisoning begins …

If you think that exerting diligent effort to learn the difference between fact and blind assertion is a “quirk”, then you’re going to have a bad time here.

Atheists often have a problem with the Creator, who is called God, why?


What we have a “problem” with, is unsupported blind assertions peddled as purportedly constituting fact. Which they don’t. Learn this lesson quickly to spare yourself much pain and embarrassment here.

Your “creator” is [1] merely asserted to exist, [2] merely asserted to exist within the pages of a mythology, and [3] merely asserted to exist within the pages of a mythology containing numerous demonstrable errors. Such as the failure to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, or asserting that genetics is purportedly controlled by coloured sticks.

Given the lamentable provenance of your mythology as a purported source of “knowledge”, as expounded above, no one with properly functioning neurons would treat its assertions as fact, and certainly not in the same uncritical manner as the numerous mythology fanboys who come here, pretending that they’re in a position to tell us that the world’s best scientists are purportedly “wrong”, because their findings happen not to genuflect before unsupported mythological assertion.

And at this point, it’s time to introduce you to the proper rules of discourse. Viz:

[1] Every assertion, when first presented, possesses the status “truth value unknown”. Just to clarify the point, this doesn’t mean that the assertion lacks a truth-value, merely that said truth-value remains undetermined.

[2] The remedy for the above epistemological deficit, is to test the assertion, in order to determine the truth-value thereof. Only once a proper test of the assertion in question has been performed, will the truth-value be known.

[3] Assertions determined via proper test to be false, are discarded except for pedagogical purposes. Assertions determined via proper test to be true, become our evidentially supported postulates, and are added to our body of knowledge.

[4] If an assertion cannot be tested even in principle, let alone practice, then it remains in the limbo I described above, and may be safely discarded.

Now here’s the important part. The above rules of discourse apply to all assertions, regardless of their source. Attempts to exempt your favourite assertions from scrutiny of the above sort constitute manifest discoursive dishonesty. We don’t care that assertions presented to us originate in a mythology you treat as a “holy book”, they receive the same treatment as every other assertion heading our way. If you don’t like this, then adult discourse is not for you.

While dealing with the matter of mythology fanboy assertions, there’s another problem for you to address. Namely, the complete failure of mythology fanboys to agree on a global scale, which of the extant mythologies fabricated by humans is purportedly the “right” mythology, and failure of adherents of a particular mythology to agree upon what its contents are purportedly telling us. This embarrassing display of anti-consilience on the part of mythology fanboys should be telling you something important.

Moving on …

Before I proceed to answer your questions, by the Rules of Logic

I always laugh when I see mythology fanboys posturing as being in a position to lecture us on the “rules of logic”, only for it to be revealed later that they know nothing of substance about the subject.

Let’s see if you can answer these questions without looking them up, shall we?

[1] What is the rigorous definition of ‘implication’?

[2] Why is incautious use of the material conditional a major source of errors in logical derivations?

[3] Explain why the rules of passage for quantificational schemata work for the material conditional, but not the biconditional.

Moving on …

and other Laws Providing for Conclusive Proof of Truth of a matter

And at this point, the mere presence of the word “truth” capitalised above, is a strong red flag indicating an agenda.

let us get this out of the way, what is your measurement and standard of Proof of Truth?

If we’re talking about truth-values of assertions, and their conversion into true or false postulates, there are two currently known reliable method applicable to said assertons, viz:

[1] Error free derivation in a relevant formal system (see, for example, various subsets of pure mathematics);

[2] Correspondence with observational data (see, for example, the physical sciences).

If you want to bring a different methodology into the arena, you have to establish that said methodology is reliable first, before demanding that we accept it. Failure to do so will simply result in much laughter aimed at your direction.

Is it by Natural Truths like that popular Mountain we call Mount Everest in the place we call Asia Truth?

or is it by speculative and Test Tube standards of truth like saying in the next 10 years a woman can be the president of America?

And with the above, you’ve already exposed your agenda to an embarrassing extent.

As someone who paid attention in chemistry class, I resent your implication that experiments in test tubes fail to meet rigorous standards in this matter.

Or are you afraid that failure of your assertions to meet the relevant criteria, means you’re seeking in advance to skew the operation of the arena of discourse by handing special privileges to your assertions? It’s not as if we haven’t observed this being done in the past by mythology fanboys.

Diverting tangentially for a moment to deal with this:

You are an objective evidence, that demonstrates, for any deity. You’re, to start with, the first exhibit. With can move on, to examine the human eye and its complexity to take as part of an objective evidence you can use to demonstrate for a Designer, Inventor, Creator, Coder, Maker, Scientist, Prime Mover, Planner et cetera Deity


The vast body of evidence from palaeontology and molecular phylogeny points to me being a descendant of a long line of apes, of which humans are one species thereof.

Second, if you think the eye was “designed”, then I have some nice scientific papers on the evolution of the eye that destroy this assertion.

Returning to the topic at hand …

Andl Your first answer is a fallacious, the Reversal fallacy, Shifting the burden, may be Tu Quoque.

Wrong. YOU are the one asserting that your cartoon magic man exists, YOU are the one required to support that assertion. Now where have we seen this piece of mythology fanboy duplicity before, boys and girls?


Every. Bloody. Where.

Oh god … I’m glad :butterfly: didn’t get his teeth into my fairy posts :grimacing:


I doubt he would want to mess with that, White. Everybody knows the dust on fairy wings numbs and paralyzes the tongue, so biting one would not be a pleasant experience.

They taste shit too…um…as I dived on it, it looked all the world like a butterfly…

No the question is for atheists specifically, because I am not arguing against evolution, I’m arguing against the interpretation of evolution by atheists. Many religious people accept evolution too.

Am I a creationist? I am only asking you the why behind evolution, and how it relates to the God question, not the truth or falsehood of evolution

This question have been answered so many times, but you don’t wanna deal with it, you keep asking it. The logical evidence is the existence of the world that we live in, and the fact that we exist, it is more logical to conclude that something or an intelligence made my hand evolve to be this way, so I can use it the way I currently use it.
So when you say objective evidence, is it objective evidence from a lab result or a scientific law? if so, then not everything we know today comes from such kind of evidence.

Again, I know that my father is my father, even though I do not look so much like him physically, but I have faith that my mother was faithful, I do not need a DNA test report.
Then you ask me, what objective evidence do you have to claim that your father is your father even without a DNA test, and you keep saying you haven’t found one yet, but then until you define what type of objective evidence you are talking about, it becomes meaningless.
is objective evidence a DNA test? I don’t need one, my logic tells me that if I exist, and I have been living with my mum and father, and they took care of me till this time, it is more logical to accept the thesis that this is indeed my father.
I may be wrong, but it would be more foolish for me to insist on a DNA test before believing, that he is my father. The more logical default for now before the DNA test, is that I am the son of my so called father.
Not every form of knowledge comes from a kind of lab or test report, not even in science.
What you should be asking is: What logical evidence do you have for the existence of a God? then I present the logical evidence and we discuss the foolishness or merit thereof.

Well before the big bang, there was no universe. Also before you were born, you didn’t exist I guess. So we know that nothing means non existent.

disagree, this makes no sense. Randomness that is filtered cannot be so precise. It is more logical to assume that nature has been pre programmed from the big bang. Randomness that is filtered can give algorithms like a drunkards’ walk, but it’s still a stretch of faith to conclude that this algorithm produced humans and the world, with life on earth, and made the earth livable bringing in all necessary conditions and stuff like that. The algorithm seem to know that we would need copper and iron someday, and it produced all of these in time billions of years ago after the big bang. The algorithm produced living things from a material earth all by itself just like that without a program using it? I am not arguing against the existence of the algorithm, but I am saying even if it exist, it is been applied via programming, this is why it could give birth to life on earth( the only planet with evidence of life so far).
The fact that these algorithms or programming laws that could lead to humans like you and I, and a spinning earth like this with all the perfect minute conditions for life, brings the theists to the logical conclusion that there is an intelligence in nature or a program at work. I am simply saying that this intelligence and life force was infused from the big bang.
If you argue otherwise, then would you admit that your conclusion is also a leap of faith? then show me why yours is more reasonable than mine.
Remember, we are not discussing the truth of evolution, but our interpretation of this truth. We use logic to interpret the evidence before us. Even in archeology, after the physical evidence, we put 1 and 2 together most times to arrive at a reasonable conclusion, while there may be other interpretations to the physical evidence.

Well if science is wrong on evolution, the default assumption ( as it had been before evolution) would continue to be that god or gods created the world, so a higher intelligence created the world and us.

I believe I have discussed the issue of evidence above.

Precise? Look at the variety of species that have lived and died on this planet. All their shapes, sizes, and colors are the result of cumulative random mutations. Whether those mutants survive and prosper as new species depends on equally random events affecting the climate and landscape, as well as the emergence or extinction of other species of plants and animals.

How precise was the meteor that wiped out most of the dinosaurs? Why did your ancestors and mine survive the Black Death, smallpox, cholera, and the Spanish flu? Were they designed to survive by god, or just genetically or geographically lucky?

And that’s a false dichotomy. The options for emergence and development of life on this planet are not abiogenesis + evolution, or a creator god. And BTW, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. It explains the development and diversity of life.

The options are abiogenesis (life from non-life through chemical means) + evolution, or something else that we have not yet discovered.

Oh for fuck sake.

Non sequitor. The truth or falsity of evolution has nothing to do with the existence of god(s)

The default position is not ‘god did it’. Your claim is based on false dichotomy. The default positions for this atheist “I don’t know”

1 Like

The dirty Old Man Fairy wears a red suit trimmed with white fur or a black dress accessorized with a totemic torture device.

Actually your chagrin was justified. Disingenuous was my impression as well, and every post since has reinforced that impression.

I can’t see these in Boomer’s posts, could you quote them for me please?

Or any non existent thing, so putting your deity beyond the scope of science is something of an own goal. Not that you can demonstrate any objective evidence for the claim of course, though I suspect that is precisely why theists use such claims.

No it doesn’t, that’s pure assumption, in fact it involves several unevidenced assumptions, but that is what tends to happen when we speculate without any evidence of course, especially when you’re trying to justifying a core belief you can’t demonstrate any objective evidence for.

NO! That is not the Default Assumption. You do not get to sneak your god in without evidence. If science is wrong, and has been wrong all along, the default position is “We don’t know.” Wait a minute??? “That IS the position science currently holds!” You fucktard, you are not talking about evolution, you are talking about ‘COSMOLOGY.’

Evolution is not COSMOLOGY.

1 Like