Atheists: How stupid are people really?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

54 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Like I said, the Old Testament and the New one are quite different. The old testament people were not Christians. Christ wasn’t around for all that. He put a stop to it when he took over. 

It was definitely one of those rare reboots that worked

[Mookz 1,362]

Why do we always have to conflate theism/atheism with organized religion? 

Would the Big Bang be evidence for creation or against it?   

[usurpers26 26]

4 minutes ago, Mookz said:

Why do we always have to conflate theism/atheism with organized religion? 

 

Winner.

/thread

[Utilit99 4,099]

5 minutes ago, usurpers26 said:

Winner.

/thread

I only started this thread to watch the majority of the atheists crack and fall apart and rail on the religious folks while not providing any evidence of their own for their own beliefs. Mission accomplished.

I'm the winner.

Atheists, particularly the secular left, have used violence and oppression to promote atheism.

Historically, atheism has generally been an integral part of communist ideology (see: Atheism and communism). According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."^[1] Under atheistic communism tens of millions of people were killed and many people were tortured (see: Atheism and mass murder and Atheistic communism and torture)

/thread.

 

[usurpers26 26]

2 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

I only started this thread to watch the majority of the atheists crack and fall apart and rail on the religious folks while not providing any evidence of their own for their own beliefs. Mission accomplished.

I'm the winner.

Atheists, particularly the secular left, have used violence and oppression to promote atheism.

Historically, atheism has generally been an integral part of communist ideology (see: Atheism and communism). According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."^[1] Under atheistic communism tens of millions of people were killed and many people were tortured (see: Atheism and mass murder and Atheistic communism and torture)

/thread.

 

Please show me where I cracked and/or fell apart and/or railed on religious folks?

That's awesome that you want to make a link to atheists and communism, I couldn't care less.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,879]

People more worked up about religion , that doesn’t affect them much, than they are about a political class on both sides that focks them everyday in every way. Punching down at its finest. Jeff Bezos and the Oligarchs that are running things are much more of a concern than the pope or a televangelist. Shiny objects. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

People more worked up about religion , that doesn’t affect them much, than they are about a political class on both sides that focks them everyday in every way. Punching down at its finest. Jeff Bezos and the Oligarchs that are running things are much more of a concern than the pope or a televangelist. Shiny objects. 

This is true. We have a great country that is being destroyed from within by MSM, and from the top by liberal policy and fat cash tech companies.

[Horseman 2,683]

On 12/26/2020 at 2:47 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why are you people who don’t believe so worked up about those who do? It’s like people who don’t vote complaining about those who do. If you don’t participate, what do you care? You made it clear you don’t by not voting. That should be enough of a statement. You don’t do religion? Got it. You make it clear how you stand. 

You are saying this with a straight face by forgetting to read the title and the original post?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,879]

Just now, Horseman said:

You are saying this with a straight face by forgetting to read the title and the original post?

Yes I am. I also read what you wrote with a bewildered face. Please elaborate. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,477]

I don’t see anyone worked up but Util. Who is having a Sho like showing in this thread

[Horseman 2,683]

On 12/27/2020 at 3:02 AM, Utilit99 said:

So how do atheists prove their belief? 

That's not how logic works, science doesn't run around disproving things.  You aren't going to win any argument of logic starting out with a false premise.  

Easier answer for you:  The lack of any evidence.  

If you find that Evolutions contradicts your beliefs, then we can have that debate as I believe in Evolution and can back that belief up with plenty of proof.

[Strike 5,908]

8 minutes ago, Horseman said:

You are saying this with a straight face by forgetting to read the title and the original post?

Maybe he should say it with a Horse Face?

[Utilit99 4,099]

4 minutes ago, Horseman said:

That's not how logic works, science doesn't run around disproving things.  You aren't going to win any argument of logic starting out with a false premise.  

Easier answer for you:  The lack of any evidence.  

If you find that Evolutions contradicts your beliefs, then we can have that debate as I believe in Evolution and can back that belief up with plenty of proof.

Yes it is. Atheists have a firm belief that there is no God. This has nothing to do with any other religion or any other belief. 

Atheist = "I believe there is no Gods." Based on.....?

If a person just states, "beats me if there is a God or not. "  That's not an atheist.

So, prove what you believe is true. Or don't. I don't have an issue either way. Just don't bring religion into the fold when it comes to proving a point of atheism.

[Horseman 2,683]

7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yes I am. I also read what you wrote with a bewildered face. Please elaborate. 

Paraphrasing you said the atheist posters are all worked up.  Please read the thread title and first post.  Someone actually was compelled to start this thread.

[Horseman 2,683]

2 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

Yes it is. Atheists have a firm belief that there is no God. This has nothing to do with any other religion or any other belief. 

Atheist = "I believe there is no Gods." Based on.....?

If a person just states, "beats me if there is a God or not. "  That's not an atheist.

No, there just isn't any evidence of God. None. If all the evidence in the universe turned in favor of creationism, I would admit it and immediately change my mind. As things stand, all available evidence, a whole boat load of it, favors evolution.

I have a feeling that truth harbors your resentment.  

[IGotWorms 4,060]

1 hour ago, Mookz said:

Why do we always have to conflate theism/atheism with organized religion? 

Would the Big Bang be evidence for creation or against it?   

IMO the Big Bang would be evidence against creation but not conclusive. There’s still the question of what preceded the Big Bang, and then what preceded that and so on ad infinitum.

That’s why I think the atheists are far too certain. No matter what it doesn’t seem like they have an answer for the origin, and probably never will.

[Utilit99 4,099]

13 minutes ago, Horseman said:

No, there just isn't any evidence of God. None. If all the evidence in the universe turned in favor of creationism, I would admit it and immediately change my mind. As things stand, all available evidence, a whole boat load of it, favors evolution.

I have a feeling that truth harbors your resentment.  

I don't have resentment. I have never given grief to an atheist I know personally ever. I have many atheist friends. And thinking that evolution would be a proof of no God, it's a failed proof.

I was just asking if anyone has proof for their belief in atheism other than just saying they haven't found it yet. 

It's like someone saying in the 1960's that they have a faith based upon thoughts that there are no such things as black holes in the universe because it hasn't been proven yet. They wouldn't say that though, because they just didn't know what was out there. 

But yet atheists are so sure there is no God they put their faith in it.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

11 minutes ago, Horseman said:

No, there just isn't any evidence of God. None. If all the evidence in the universe turned in favor of creationism, I would admit it and immediately change my mind. As things stand, all available evidence, a whole boat load of it, favors evolution.

I have a feeling that truth harbors your resentment.  

But where’d evolution begin? How can you be certain that it wasn’t a feature of creation?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,879]

13 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Paraphrasing you said the atheist posters are all worked up.  Please read the thread title and first post.  Someone actually was compelled to start this thread.

Responding to it like they always do is what I’m talking about. Never mind one of these religious people are dumb threads get started all the time around here. I conflated. Still doesn’t change the fact that religion should rank way down on the list of what the problem is. 

[Strike 5,908]

Quote

It is important to make it clear that evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. Contrary to what many people think, there is also little conflict between evolution and most common religions. Pope Francis recently reiterated that a belief in evolution isn't incompatible with the Catholic faith. Going further, the reverend Malcom Brown from the Church of England stated that "natural selection, as a way of understanding physical evolutionary processes over thousands of years, makes sense." He added: "Good religion needs to work constructively with good science" and vice-versa.

https://phys.org/news/2016-02-common-evolution.html

[Horseman 2,683]

2 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

I don't have resentment. I have never given grief to an atheist I know personally ever. I have many atheist friends. And thinking that evolution would be a proof of no God, it a failed proof.

Evolution is a proof that demonstrates the origin of new species and is a very valid proof for life developing on this planet.  It doesn't attempt disprove anything, that's a logic error you keep having.  Unless, someone's belief in creationism includes some of the fantastical claims in the bible, then yes evolution would seem to make them invalid. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

6 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Evolution is a proof that demonstrates the origin of new species and is a very valid proof for life developing on this planet.  It doesn't attempt disprove anything, that's a logic error you keep having.  Unless, someone's belief in creationism includes some of the fantastical claims in the bible, then yes evolution would seem to make them invalid. 

It is not a logic error on my part. And I never talked about creationism. I'm strictly looking into atheism in this thread. There is a religious thread you can bring that up in. And looking into the reason some people are atheists. Not why they don't believe in religion, but why they believe they are correct that there is no God at all definitively.

You have a very difficult time with staying on subject in this thread. It's not my task to prove your choice of believing it is beyond the realm of reality to think there could exist a God. 

[Horseman 2,683]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

But where’d evolution begin? How can you be certain that it wasn’t a feature of creation?

Not certain, no.  There are some books written on the quantum mechanics of the universe that attempt to make it more likely that life spontaneously exists than not, but, I won't pretend to understand them enough to be convincing.   However, just looking at evolutionary fact, there is no help along (from magic fairy men in the sky) from single cell organisms to chimpanzees to humans.  Every single event happens naturally.  You then have to ask yourself what is more likely?  There is abundance of proof on one side with literally zero on the other.  It's kind of chicken sh!t to call yourself agnostic at that point.

 

[Voltaire 5,425]

45 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

People more worked up about religion , that doesn’t affect them much, than they are about a political class on both sides that focks them everyday in every way. Punching down at its finest. Jeff Bezos and the Oligarchs that are running things are much more of a concern than the pope or a televangelist. Shiny objects. 

It was easier to get worked up over religion when the debate was about stem cell research or teaching creationism in public schools and that was about the extent of it. Now that I see them as allies in the culture war against the forces you mention and others, I'm really not interested in taking them on anymore.

And there was never a time that I ever thought Jesus' teachings were out of line nor did I ever fail to recognize the critical role they played in western history, ethics and morality.

I follow the teachings of Christ, generally, although I don't believe in any divinity or think that heaven exists, only that I recognize it as good advice, but not particularly more valuable than the lessons I learn from other secular sources. I don't need a thunderbolt up my ass or the threat of fire and brimstone to recognize the difference between right and wrong and apply them to my life. If I ever return to Catholicism, it wouldn't be to save my soul or because of the current idiot pope, but in spite him. No. It would be for a couple of reasons, the first is because I want to take a more active role in fighting wokeness than b*tching about in on a lightly trafficked FF message forum amongst people who mostly agree with me. When I saw how nimbly Jacob Rees Mogg wields his Catholicism as a shield when taking on the cultural freaks, I thought it was brilliant and realized that if I ever stepped up my game against real SJWs on twitter or somewhere ((I don't post there), I could use that same technique of air cover. The second is that I would want my kids to be Biblically literate and Catholicism is the least stupid/most intellectually formidable form of Christianity out there IMO. They've come a long way since having to take a good hard look at how they treated Galileo and Copernicus in coming to terms with that.

[Horseman 2,683]

2 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

It is not a logic error on my part. And I never talked about creationism. I'm strictly looking into atheism in this thread. There is a religious thread you can bring that up in. And looking into the reason some people are atheists. Not why they don't believe in religion, but why they believe they are correct that there is no God at all definitively.

You have a very difficult time with staying on subject in this thread. It's not my task to prove your choice of believing it is beyond the realm of reality to think there could exist a God. 

Then the answer is simple.

33 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Easier answer for you:  The lack of any evidence.  

None at all.  Zero.  Nada. 

Most people are atheist about the moon or stars being goods.   Same with Osirus, Zeus, Apollo, Thor.  Some of us just aren't hung up on the latest God craze either.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

7 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Not certain, no.  There are some books written on the quantum mechanics of the universe that attempt to make it more likely that life spontaneously exists than not, but, I won't pretend to understand them enough to be convincing.   However, just looking at evolutionary fact, there is no help along (from magic fairy men in the sky) from single cell organisms to chimpanzees to humans.  Every single event happens naturally.  You then have to ask yourself what is more likely?  There is abundance of proof on one side with literally zero on the other.  It's kind of chicken sh!t to call yourself agnostic at that point.

 

I think it’s arrogant to call yourself atheist

[Horseman 2,683]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I think it’s arrogant to call yourself atheist

 

37 minutes ago, Horseman said:

No, there just isn't any evidence of God. None. If all the evidence in the universe turned in favor of creationism, I would admit it and immediately change my mind. As things stand, all available evidence, a whole boat load of it, favors evolution.

Some people say you ought to keep an open mind and stay agnostic, but that seems like a cop-out.  You could say the same thing about santa clause and the tooth fairy.  But if any new evidence turns up please let me know asap.  

[Utilit99 4,099]

37 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Then the answer is simple.

None at all.  Zero.  Nada. 

Most people are atheist about the moon or stars being goods.   Same with Osirus, Zeus, Apollo, Thor.  Some of us just aren't hung up on the latest God craze either.

Science itself can't be proven. It needs logical structure which can't be proven by science itself, and nature's regular patterns which can only be presupposed. 

None of it is provable, yet you base everything you believe in, including there is absolutely no God, on these inputs you are being given by others that you choose to follow. Look at the divide in the country about the whole wearing a mask. creepy joe is running around his basement telling everyone to "follow the science", yet, the scientists keep changing their minds or flat out disagree.  

Believing completely that there is no God (atheism) is like many years ago believing that the world was flat and that the universe orbited the earth.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

10 minutes ago, Horseman said:

 

Some people say you ought to keep an open mind and stay agnostic, but that seems like a cop-out.  You could say the same thing about santa clause and the tooth fairy.  But if any new evidence turns up please let me know asap.  

You don’t maybe need Santa Claus or the tooth fairy to fill in the gap on how it all began

[Mookz 1,362]

What I'm hearing, and this could be fake news, is that the more we learn about what's really going on inside cells, the less likely it could have been caused by undirected mutation. 

For example, they're finding basically miniature machines made up of many separate proteins, all of which are necessary for the machine to "work".  So let's say you have a machine made up of 100 proteins, all 100 would have to be in place at the same time in order for the machine to function, and confer any evolutionary advantage, and be passed on to future generations.  It's called "irreducible complexity", i.e. it's a complex structure that can't be put together one step at a time through random changes because there would be no reason for those changes to be passed on.  

[Horseman 2,683]

8 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

Science itself can't be proven. It needs logical structure which can't be proven by science itself, and nature's regular patterns which can only be presupposed. 

None of it is provable, yet you base everything you believe in, including there is absolutely no God based on these inputs you are being given by others that you choose to follow. 

Believing completely that there is no God (atheism) today is like many years ago believing that the world was flat and that the universe orbited the earth.

An overabundance of evidence vs. Zero.  It's really that simple, no need to keep twisting yourself into knots. 

I'm not following anyone, I educate myself and make up my own mind.   You're describing a common mistake religious people make.

Funny you bring up flat earthers.  People who believe the earth flat today are religious and flat earth is an interpretation of the bible that they just can't give way to science despite the overwhelming evidence.  It's very analogous to evolution and is an example opposite of what you think it is. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

18 minutes ago, Mookz said:

What I'm hearing, and this could be fake news, is that the more we learn about what's really going on inside cells, the less likely it could have been caused by undirected mutation. 

For example, they're finding basically miniature machines made up of many separate proteins, all of which are necessary for the machine to "work".  So let's say you have a machine made up of 100 proteins, all 100 would have to be in place at the same time in order for the machine to function, and confer any evolutionary advantage, and be passed on to future generations.  It's called "irreducible complexity", i.e. it's a complex structure that can't be put together one step at a time through random changes because there would be no reason for those changes to be passed on.  

Yeah, saw this before when looking into some things. The bolded below is something I was bringing up a post or two ago.

Over the past half a century, molecular biology has generated vast amounts of knowledge at a rate that is surely unprecedented in the history of science. However, our progress in translating this ever-growing repository of information into a deeper theoretical understanding of what living systems are and how they function as coordinated wholes has been far less impressive. Now it may be that this is simply a reflection of the extraordinary complexity of the cell, and that it is only a matter of time before all cellular components are characterized and all of their interconnections are fully mapped out, at which point we will finally have a total grasp of the internal workings of the cell.

Alternatively, it is possible that the problem lies not so much in the complexity of the cell as in the interpretive framework—the theoretical presuppositions, conceptual categories, and explanatory models—routinely used to make sense of this complexity. This paper explores this second possibility

[Utilit99 4,099]

13 minutes ago, Horseman said:

An overabundance of evidence vs. Zero.  It's really that simple, no need to keep twisting yourself into knots. 

I'm not following anyone, I educate myself and make up my own mind.   You're describing a common mistake religious people make.

Funny you bring up flat earthers.  People who believe the earth flat today are religious and flat earth is an interpretation of the bible that they just can't give way to science despite the overwhelming evidence.  It's very analogous to evolution and is an example opposite of what you think it is. 

You are describing a mistake a lot of people make, taking presuppositions, and believing they give you all the answers in the universe. Hint: they don't and never will.

And you can't stay away away from talking about religion when you are trying to make a point for there being no God and saying atheism is truth.

You are basically saying, atheism is true, because you believe it to be true. And you got nothing else other than saying some religious person that I don't know is saying the earth is flat. And you never approached my points about comparing your atheism to those who thought the earth was flat and that the earth is the center of the universe many years ago.

 

[Horseman 2,683]

22 minutes ago, Mookz said:

What I'm hearing, and this could be fake news, is that the more we learn about what's really going on inside cells, the less likely it could have been caused by undirected mutation. 

For example, they're finding basically miniature machines made up of many separate proteins, all of which are necessary for the machine to "work".  So let's say you have a machine made up of 100 proteins, all 100 would have to be in place at the same time in order for the machine to function, and confer any evolutionary advantage, and be passed on to future generations.  It's called "irreducible complexity", i.e. it's a complex structure that can't be put together one step at a time through random changes because there would be no reason for those changes to be passed on.  

Pseudoscience put out by the intelligent design community.  This was debunked 15 years or so ago and rejected by the science community.

[Horseman 2,683]

1 minute ago, Utilit99 said:

You are describing a mistake a lot of people make, taking presuppositions, and believing they give you all the answers in the universe. Hint: they don't and never will.

We are a far long ways away from all the answers of the universe.**    However, we have more than ample evidence for Evolution and Zero for Creationism.  The scoreboard is something like many millions to zero in the fourth quarter.  Not only is it not even close, it's going to be a shutout.

**You keep making grandiose strawman claims like this.  It is a debate fallacy people use (sometimes unknowingly) when you have nothing to support your position. 

 

[Mookz 1,362]

5 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Pseudoscience put out by the intelligent design community.  This was debunked 15 years or so ago and rejected by the science community.

Probly. 

Can you give the cliffs notes version of how it's wrong, and dumb it down a bit?  Is it just because given enough time, it would still happen?  

[Utilit99 4,099]

Just now, Horseman said:

We are a far long ways away from all the answers of the universe.**    However, we have more than ample evidence for Evolution and Zero for Creationism.  n. 

 

Yes the first is true. But evolution does not prove atheism is truth. For you to think that ends this discussion. You don't know what you are asserting or the why's or what's of it all. Everything seems to be going over your head man. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

8 minutes ago, Mookz said:

Probly. 

Can you give the cliffs notes version of how it's wrong, and dumb it down a bit?  Is it just because given enough time, it would still happen?  

He can answer on that in seconds as he educated himself on all of this science. Did all the studies, formulas, research, experiments etc. He even is the only person in the universe that can prove atheism is truth (although he won't share that proof here).

His words: "I'm not following anyone, I educate myself and make up my own mind."

 

[Horseman 2,683]

2 minutes ago, Mookz said:

Probly. 

Can you give the cliffs notes version of how it's wrong, and dumb it down a bit?  Is it just because given enough time, it would still happen?  

They claim is that complex systems composed of several interacting parts will stop functioning if any of the interacting parts are removed or changed.  It completely ignores the ability for the mechanism to adapt to changes.   Not to mention all the published studies documenting these adaptions.  

[Strike 5,908]

41 minutes ago, Mookz said:

What I'm hearing, and this could be fake news, is that the more we learn about what's really going on inside cells, the less likely it could have been caused by undirected mutation. 

For example, they're finding basically miniature machines made up of many separate proteins, all of which are necessary for the machine to "work".  So let's say you have a machine made up of 100 proteins, all 100 would have to be in place at the same time in order for the machine to function, and confer any evolutionary advantage, and be passed on to future generations.  It's called "irreducible complexity", i.e. it's a complex structure that can't be put together one step at a time through random changes because there would be no reason for those changes to be passed on.  

Watch the following documentary, that I've posted before.  It's a NOVA documentary that covers a trial regarding Intelligent Design.  Your question is covered extensively in reenactments of testimony from the trial.  In the meantime, can you post the links to where you "heard" what you heard.  I assume they're credible.