Why don't you believe?

YOUR interpretation of “red” are all human personality traits and qualities PROJECTED on to a simple wave length…

OH my, OH my, OH MY!!! Lookee :eyes: here - demonstrable evidence of “red”…

SOMETHING a theist isn’t able to provide for their invisible sky daddy of choice…

David…possible that he may self identify as both sexes and use them interspersed - ie while wearing his red, sparkly, high heels :high_heel: and matching lipstick :lipstick: he may be identifying with her more feminine qualities.

You atheists should try taking responsibility for your decisions. None but you will be held responsible. You’ve got just as much brain and stuff as others, so do yourself a favor and stop waiting for another to do you.

It’s one thing to have no faith, it’s another to be an atheist. Sorcerers and demons believe in creator but got no faith. In the physical plane though, atheists make completely irrational, tending even to dumb claims, whelmed in denial despite logic screaming out loud on the rooftops, pointing to an intelligent designer, beginning from your body and soul proceeding to the intergalactic systems and all apart from scientific evidences like the space-time models and all natural laws e.g. energy conservation. Further, logic shows what is expected of us by simply observing the laws of the nature and the consequences of going against them. However logic can only go that far and ends where faith begins. Logic establishes the existence of creator and even his ways but faith is the only way you can possibly pacify, without ignoring, your personal gauge/meter from creator, your pricking conscience, which seeing not, you cannot deny it’s existence. Faith is also the only source point from which you can satisfy god’s behavioural laws which are also mirrored in the laws of nature E.g. “Do to others as you would have done to you” reflected in “action and reaction are equal and opposite”

And sorry to burst your bubbles but you are no image of god, you would have to begin from faith and work your way into such image. Despite the fall and consequent defects, all creatures show the creator expresses a billion ideas but remains one person in his essence/substratum, each design uniquely intelligent and suited to a specific purpose. There’s more proof of the intelligent designer in your little rant up there than in many volumes of scientific papers. Way to go!
Plus yeah, evolution died as another illogical idea in the mind, with many other and when the scientific community discovered the universality of the genetic code across multifarious existence, that just somehow doesn’t evolve.
Have you also studied the complexity of the genetic code and the degree of intelligence embodied by it. Pray tell, if there’s still rationality in you, how does that not make you throw out the idea of anticreationism?

That sound hot. :hushed:

2 Likes

Oh yeah, the obligatory stab at the theory of evolution; firmly establishing yourself as a crackpot.

Are you suggesting a romantic interlude for one?

1 Like

Incorrect. I use a term of reference that is not determined by a “god”.

Question: If your “god” declared that slavery was moral, would you also accept that slavery is moral?

In the interests of fair play, my position is that any form of slavery, including indentured servitude, is immoral.

1 Like

My bubble isn’t bursted :balloon: IN FACT this is a compliment of the highest order. The book written by Bronze Age goat/sheep herders record god as a genocidal, prejudiced asshole that OKs incest, and slavery.

The 10 Commandments are outdated…have you read them???

AND the recorded accounts of the “nice side of god” written in Roman times is hearsay. Even the nice side of god was ok with slavery…

Hilarious! Thanks for the compliment… :pray:

Oh I think your post has pulled that rug from under everyone here.

Not one word of that is objective evidence, it’s just vapid rhetoric.

Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. You’re making up errant nonsense, and simply tacking the word logic to it, and you clearly haven’t even the most basic grasp of what logic is. Let alone understand it’s methods, including recognising and avoiding known logical fallacies, like the argument from assertion fallacy you seem determined to use to death in this post

Again you should start by actually looking up the definition of logic, as you’re embarrassing yourself, and faith is utterly useless in validating claims or beliefs, as there is quite literally nothing one could not believe using faith. As I keep asking, if you believe something without any objective evidence, or based on faith alone in other words, then what is your criteria for disbelieving anything?

I don’t believe you, pleased demonstrate objective evidence for your claim.

That would be nature with untold ubiquitous suffering from disease and predation? Again your rhetoric is painfully and obviously nonsensical here as it is elsewhere.

Sorry to burst yours, but that is a theistic claim, not an atheistic one.

The entire scientific world disagrees with you, as does all the objective evidence. This also includes Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, and a world leader in genetics, and he is a born again christian. Now despite his religious beliefs being based on risible unevidenced guff, his scientific credential are beyond repute, so this rather destroys your dishonest guff here.

See previous response from world leader in the field of genetics. There is no intelligence in DNA, this is another tedious unevidenced assertion. Creationism is naught but unevidenced superstitious guff, there is nothing to throw out.

1 Like

The question I have for atheists is this:
Why is there a human eye in the first place?
Why did it evolve to function the way it does?

You even admitted that other animals have better eyes than us, fine. However, we as humans generally have better brains than those animals, so couldn’t it be that there is a creator who wasn’t interested in giving an all perfect design ( probably in order to create a sort of balance) but a creator nonetheless?

If evolution is a disorganised or random process, why is it so self directed? it seems to me to be pre programmed.

I think what we should be concerned about, is not whether or not a creator exist ( because a creator most likely exists) but rather who this creator is and why the creator exists in the first place.

Why is there something rather than absolute nothing?

This is an atheist site and not a biology forum. Science tells us all about the evolution of the eye. So much so that this argument has been dead since the Scopes Trial in 1925. No one believed your bullshit then and no one believes it today.

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-here-s-how-eyes-evolved-500-million-years ago#:~:text=Scientists%20have%20traced%20the%20origin,the%20exterior%20of%20their%20bodies.

Okay, with that out of the way… lets pretend that evolution is completely wrong. 100% wrong. In fact, all of science is wrong. Medicine, Physics, Astronomy, Psychology, Philosophy, and every branch of science you can imagine. Every single branch is wrong… How does that prove the existence of your God. YOU DO NOT WIN BY DEFAULT. STOP BEING IGNORANT. You either offer evidence for the existence of your god or you tuck your tail between your legs and run away like the looser you are trying not to be.,

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OR NON EXISTENCE OF YOUR GOD. Define your god and demonstrate its existence.

Because it is randomness that is filtered. Not unlike a drunkard’s walk.

Why is that a question for atheists specifically? It surely is more aptly aimed at evolutionary biologists.

Here is link to the talk origins website, as well as answering all your questions on evolution, it has a list of creationist propaganda claims that most creationists don’t see aware that science has debunked

I don’t know, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for one? I’m in my 50’s now, and no theists has been able to demonstrate any thus far.

Odd that the entire global scientific community think the opposite, evolution effectively ended Darwin’s christian beliefs. Much to the chagrin of his very christian wife.

I disagree, as worrying about what type of non existent creator exists seems pretty pointless to me, so you’re putting your cart well in front of your horse.

How do you know nothing is even possible? Until you do the question seems so loaded as to make it rather facile. Either way I don’t see how this remotely evidences any deity, or anything supernatural.

Do you know what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is? You seem to be basing your reasoning on this quite a bit in that post.

Awwww… :relaxed:… Thank you! How sweet. Such a wonderful compliment.

Exactly! Same line of thought for my garden vedgetables. Why does a carrot :carrot: grow this way? Interesting :thinking:

Hmm hmmm - yes, yes… I see your point. It’s like how peas get a shell but lettuce doesn’t. Very deep. I must say a “perfect creator creating imperfect designs” is a stretch, especially when each garden fairy is assigned to their particular veggie. Each vegetable is perfect :tomato: :corn: :hot_pepper: for what it provides.

I like the “who” part and again, got me to thinking. Something can’t come from nothing (because nobody but nobody knows what “nothing” is) … so - my garden fairies 🧚🏻‍♂️ 🧚🏻‍♀️ had to have had a creator, and I went back and back… this is my conclusion:

The Grimm Brothers wrote about an enslaved heiress (Entitled “The Little Glass Slipper) … the writer was real, so was the setting and environment for the time. It too is a story of unjust oppression and triumphant reward. … Perhaps you’ve heard of the modern day version, “Cinderella”. NOW, this story includes a, get this - Fairy GodMother. Love it :heart_eyes:. She’s amazing and explains so much! I am going to dig deeper in her wonderful creative attributes.
AND as for the “why” She exists, well, she just does. She doesn’t need a creator, silly. She’s the “first cause”.

Edited to add: whew!!! Found photographic proof,

Evolution is not disorganized or random. The gene mutations are random, but the external forces of the environment either kill the host, is benign, or offer something gained in survival.

For example, if an animal living in a deeply forested environment changes into a color that makes it stand out instead of offering better camouflage, most likely all of those animals that carried that mutation die rather quickly, no offspring. If the color change offers better chances of survival, the animals breed, propagate, and that gene mutation lives on.

This is where the term “natural selection” is relevant.

1 Like

Genesis 1:27

New King James Version
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

So if your proposition is valid, then according to the bible your god has inferior eyes, poor hearing, and a curved spine that should be straight for something walking upright.

@Evathyst didn’t address this particular “pickle” :cucumber: either David…

1 Like

Exactly, you now they’re holding an empty bag when they start with the misdirection of attacking scientific facts, no one starts with the worst reasons for a belief, then works their way toward the best.

Actually…no. A person’s existence is, today, evidence of a human egg cell being mated with a human sperm cell, which then started dividing and attaching to a uterus, and eventually formed the person in question. Exactly how the egg cell and the sperm cell were mated is undecided. It could be the traditional way through sexual intercourse (with the legal father, the next door neighbour, or the postman), injecting sperm cells from a sperm donor (from the legal father, his brother, a friend, some anonymous sperm donor, the postman, …) into the mother’s vagina, or it could have been done outside the uterus, and then the fertilized egg was implanted. Or the parents could have used an egg donor and/or a sperm donor, and have the egg implanted. Or they could have used a surrogate mother. The possibilities are endless.

However, the traditional religious mindset only knows the traditional way of sexual intercourse within marriage.