Anti-religion literature?


Faithless
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sorry but what i said is spot on. in addition the scriptures are witnesses of God, and your attempted rebuttal does not prove that God does not exist.

Well considering he wasn't trying to prove that God doesn't exist I'm not sure how his failing to prove that God does not exist is much of a revelation. His post also fails to rebutt Newton's Third Law or that New York City is inside of the state boundries of the State of New York.

And my post fails to rebutt that 2 out of 3 doctors recommend Crest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I say prove God doesn't exist. All things in my view say God does exist, even life itself. the Fact that ammino acids arranging in the right order to make life is mathematically impossible.

the fact that our moon is in a perfect distant to block out the disc of the sun in a total eclipse. no were else in the solar system does that happen. the fact that Earth is the exact correct distant from the sun to support life every were on it. sorry for the spelling.

Wow. I love the argument that everything proves that god does exist.

Anyway, amino acids randomly arranging in the right order isn't mathematically impossible. Improbable, yes, but not impossible. But in life, they don't randomly arrange in the right order. DNA being transcribed into RNA, then moving over to the ribosomes to be translated into the amino-acid sequence is what makes proteins. The fact is, amino acid arrangement is a planed, preset process that occurs because of the DNA.

The moon is NOT the 'perfect distance from the sun' to to cause a total eclipse. The moon is larger than the sun, but because light bends, a small, yet bright ring of light escapes from behind and you can still see light coming from the sun hitting the earth. Also, it does happen on other planets. Namely, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, partial eclipses on Mars, and even larger ones on Pluto (if that even counts).

Godless talked about the distance from the sun in comparison to the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well considering he wasn't trying to prove that God doesn't exist I'm not sure how his failing to prove that God does not exist is much of a revelation. His post also fails to rebutt Newton's Third Law or that New York City is inside of the state boundries of the State of New York.

And my post fails to rebutt that 2 out of 3 doctors recommend Crest.

So we're all cuckoo for coco-puffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but what i said is spot on. in addition the scriptures are witnesses of God, and your attempted rebuttal does not prove that God does not exist.

Ok, the scriptures are a witness of god, however a flawed witness of god. Let me put it this way: If the scriptures are true, then god exists. However, if god doesn't exist, then the scriptures must be false. You are using the scriptures as evidence of an existing god, but that evidence is only sound if you are correct. You have yet to convince me that god exists, so the scriptures cannot be used as evidence to support god. If we could use text to prove that god exists, then the flying spaghetti monster would be allowed into this argument.

Godless' rebuttal does not prove that god does not exist. In fact, it is nearly impossible to prove that a god does not exist. But, does that really mean he does exist? What you're doing is called the 'flying teacup' argument. Let's say I believe that there is a teacup orbiting the sun in our solar system. It is too small for any telescope to see it, and it's in an unknown location, and you cannot prove that it is even there. However, you can also not prove that it isn't there. So, do you believe in the flying teacup?

Lastly, I said that it is nearly impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist. While that is true, there is still proof that an intelligent designer doesn't exist. I am basically arguing with evolution here, but certain parts. If someone had designed the earth and all life on it, then they did a poor job. They left vestigial parts all over the place (even in the human body), let wars, famine, genocide, rape, and murder onto the face of the earth, and left a large mess of fossils that just so happen to look like a record of the history of life itself just lying around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godless' rebuttal does not prove that god does not exist. In fact, it is nearly impossible to prove that a god does not exist. But, does that really mean he does exist? What you're doing is called the 'flying teacup' argument. Let's say I believe that there is a teacup orbiting the sun in our solar system. It is too small for any telescope to see it, and it's in an unknown location, and you cannot prove that it is even there. However, you can also not prove that it isn't there. So, do you believe in the flying teacup?

Classic argumentum ad ignorantiam, that is a popular one for both sides of the religion debate (though they use opposite sides of that particular coin).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, the scriptures are a witness of god, however a flawed witness of god.

You hit it right on the head there. Not just A witness of God, but many witnesses of God. Each prophet is a special witness to the divinity of God the father and of Jesus Christ. More than would be necessary for any court of man's law. If flaws are found they are because of mans interpretations or translations or mistranslations, not because God does not exist.

And I stick by the assertion that everything on Earth and in space testifies of God the father and of Jesus Christ also, I use the hypothesis of the habitable zone hypothesis as an example to illustrate what I am talking about, which I will admit does not take into account all the conditions for possibilities for life to exist in the solar system, for instance Europa around Jupiter is thought to have deep oceans that could hold life. however for our little Earth its such a narrow region and we are right in there. In addition to the mathematical impossibility of life forming by random chance, as I stated earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hit it right on the head there. Not just A witness of God, but many witnesses of God. Each prophet is a special witness to the divinity of God the father and of Jesus Christ. More than would be necessary for any court of man's law. If flaws are found they are because of mans interpretations or translations or mistranslations, not because God does not exist.

And I stick by the assertion that everything on Earth and in space testifies of God the father and of Jesus Christ also, I use the hypothesis of the habitable zone hypothesis as an example to illustrate what I am talking about, which I will admit does not take into account all the conditions for possibilities for life to exist in the solar system, for instance Europa around Jupiter is thought to have deep oceans that could hold life. however for our little Earth its such a narrow region and we are right in there. In addition to the mathematical impossibility of life forming by random chance, as I stated earlier.

Ok, firs off, there's no hypothesis about the habitable zone. The habitable zone is just a term used to define a place with water. Secondly, life didn't just start by random chance. I said that to you earlier, and you just ignored it. Thirdly, the scriptures are not a witness of god. They are not enough proof to hold up in any court of law as evidence for anything, and flaws are found in the scriptures because they were written, copied, and translated over a vast amount of time by humans. Lastly, nothing in space testifies of god, or Jesus, other than humans telling other humans that they believe.

Edited by Faithless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, really? You're just plugging your ears and covering your eyes to everything I say, aren't you? I'm not even going to argue with you anymore. It's not worth my time.

Not really, say something that's not nonsense and I will respond to it, other wise you probably didn't get what was talking about. what do you want me to say something like just "because I cannot see the grand canyon at the moment doesn't mean it doesn't exist"? I responded to your assertions, with intelligent points and you say they are not worth your time, because they don't have me accept your point of view? (which I never will) I think your not interested in having a debate, I think your trying to tell people how it is, and how you think it is, is not how it is. sorry. And in all that you dodge the "prove God doesn't exist." challenge with its too hard, and try to shift the discussion onto what kind of argument i am making instead of taking it head on. I am merely keeping you on track, instead of side stepping the challenge.

Edited by Saldrin
adding points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classic argumentum ad ignorantiam, that is a popular one for both sides of the religion debate (though they use opposite sides of that particular coin).

But each side of the coin is different in its own way. Saying that something exists without evidence of it is very different than saying something doesn't exist when there is no evidence to support it. If I say that I believe dragons exist, but you can prove that they don't, then I am crazy. If I say that I believe dragons don't exist, but that I will start believing in them when evidence is found, then I am sane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, say something that's not nonsense and I will respond to it, other wise you probably didn't get what was talking about. what do you want me to say something like just "because I cannot see the grand canyon at the moment doesn't mean it doesn't exist"? I responded to your assertions, with intelligent points and you say they are not worth your time, because they don't have me accept your point of view? (which I never will) I think your not interested in having a debate, I think your trying to tell people how it is, and how you think it is, is not how it is. sorry. And in all that you dodge the "prove God doesn't exist." challenge with its too hard, and try to shift the discussion onto what kind of argument i am making instead of taking it head on. I am merely keeping you on track, instead of side stepping the challenge.

You just pointed out why I don't want to argue with you. You just said that you will never accept my point of view. I am more than willing to believe that there is a god, so long as you show me proof. Evidence. You also never presented me with an argument. You told me to prove god doesn't exist. Ok, here's the proof against an intelligent designer: The fossil record, vestigial legs, murder, rape, genocide, radioactive dating, heck even the stars in the sky show that the universe wasn't Intelligently designed. Like I said before, give me evidence that there is a god, and we'll continue this further. Don't answer back with words like scriptures, or arguments like "you can't see air, so how do you know it's there". Arguing with you is like playing a game a chess with someone who thinks we're playing checkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But each side of the coin is different in its own way. Saying that something exists without evidence of it is very different than saying something doesn't exist when there is no evidence to support it. If I say that I believe dragons exist, but you can prove that they don't, then I am crazy. If I say that I believe dragons don't exist, but that I will start believing in them when evidence is found, then I am sane.

The fallacy (and I've pointed this out in a different thread I believe) is not in operating under the assumption that until proven true you won't worry about it but in logically concluding that because there is no evidence it must not be true. Such is not a logically sound conclusion. Something I've also pointed out is that reasonable and logical are not the same thing. An invisible pink unicorn that can't be detected may exist in my garage and most would think you reasonable for doubting it's existence, however you can't logically conclude it doesn't exist. It's the limits of the framework you are using. *shrug*

That said people don't believe in God in the absence of evidence (for the most part), it's just their evidence cannot be objectively confirmed and thus has limited convincing power to those who don't accept certain premises and has no scientific weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just pointed out why I don't want to argue with you. You just said that you will never accept my point of view. I am more than willing to believe that there is a god, so long as you show me proof. Evidence. You also never presented me with an argument. You told me to prove god doesn't exist. Ok, here's the proof against an intelligent designer: The fossil record, vestigial legs, murder, rape, genocide, radioactive dating, heck even the stars in the sky show that the universe wasn't Intelligently designed. Like I said before, give me evidence that there is a god, and we'll continue this further. Don't answer back with words like scriptures, or arguments like "you can't see air, so how do you know it's there". Arguing with you is like playing a game a chess with someone who thinks we're playing checkers.

I don't have to prove God exist, I am not making the assertion that he does not exist. so that has to be proven. I did give evidence that manifests God you just chose to ignore it, what you accused me of doing. as for the fossil record its full of holes, there are no transitory fossils showing one species becoming another so evolution is debunked. Murder rape genocide, um we were given our agency. so you think would be free of all things thing if we did have our agency no that was Satan's plan

Moses 4 1-4

"And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

4And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."

I fail to see how radioactive date proves anything our temporal perspectives isn't the same as God it states and just the stars in the sky do show it was created by God, just follow the earlier link, more proof for you to ignore.

how dare you tell me I cant use scripture, what makes you think you get to set the terms of the debate. the fact is you cannot prove God doesn't exist, which you have to do as you are the accuser, saying he doesn't exist. you prove it you came first saying he doesn't exist, and leave your haughty pseudo intellectual arguments behind when you try.

the scriptures are witness of God and Jesus Christ, they cannot be discounted just because you don't like them and they disprove your positions, and i reserve the right to come back and use them when i wish.

Arguing with you is like playing a game a chess with someone who thinks we're playing checkers.

Really debating you is like debating someone who is bent on playing chess when no one is playing a game to begin with. thanks for the subtile insult just like an atheist. cant win an intellectual argument so just insult them. Edited by Saldrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The human even has organs we don't use anymore (the appendix),

wow... last year there was an article...dang can't remember which periodical...

Science has finally figure out why we have an appendix. Will wonders never cease?

Edit: What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost? : Scientific American

Edited by applepansy
Link added
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow... last year there was an article...dang can't remember which periodical...

Science has finally figure out why we have an appendix. Will wonders never cease?

Edit: What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost? : Scientific American

yep i remember that moment lol it came out the day after a similar discussion I had with an agnostic/athiest. That was probably the most stumping question I got asked... and viola answer came next day. Unfortunately i wasn't able to get back with him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fallacy (and I've pointed this out in a different thread I believe) is not in operating under the assumption that until proven true you won't worry about it but in logically concluding that because there is no evidence it must not be true. Such is not a logically sound conclusion. Something I've also pointed out is that reasonable and logical are not the same thing. An invisible pink unicorn that can't be detected may exist in my garage and most would think you reasonable for doubting it's existence, however you can't logically conclude it doesn't exist. It's the limits of the framework you are using. *shrug*

That said people don't believe in God in the absence of evidence (for the most part), it's just their evidence cannot be objectively confirmed and thus has limited convincing power to those who don't accept certain premises and has no scientific weight.

So are you saying it's illogical to believe in god, but it's reasonable not to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as for the fossil record its full of holes, there are no transitory fossils showing one species becoming another so evolution is debunked.

Actually, there are plenty of transitory fossils showing one species becoming another. However, if you have any comments, questions, or arguments about evolution, please state them on this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/37267-evolution.html

I did give evidence that manifests God you just chose to ignore it, what you accused me of doing.

You didn't give me any evidence that god exists, other than give me random bible verses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share